Mothering Forum banner

Please Read!!!!

5K views 162 replies 22 participants last post by  pugmadmama 
#1 ·
I posted this on the Single Parents forum, but I also wanted to post here. Please take a monent to read this article:

This is a column from Sunday's Boston Globe- Parade section...
It is a column called Ask Marilyn (Marilyn vos Savant)

"Women have fought hard to gain the right to make their own reproductive choices. but say that a woman has a baby against her partner's wishes. do we also have the right to force men to share the financial burden of raising children they never wanted?
Women have that legal right, but I believe they should not exercise it-except in cases of dire need. On my opinion, if a woman wants to have children, she should either find a man who wants them just as much or support them herself. Otherwise, she is using the man for her own purposes, both sexually and financially.
One could argue that the man knew his actions could result in a pregnancy, so he should be held jointly responsible. But that was in the days before contraception and abortion. If the man wants the woman to have an abortion and she declines, I believe she should relieve him of his legal obligation. (note:this is not an argument for abortion; thats a different subject)
What about the children? They need mothers who wouldn't dream of having them without planning their support beforehand, even if that support is entirely the mother's own."

If you are as outraged as I am by this sentiment, please take a moment to e-mail the author and tell her how you feel.

Her e-mail: marilyn@parade.com
 
See less See more
#129 ·
Quote:
... by Dragonfly
... From Amy's post about her friend who was duped by the thieving hoor:

"Just because a woman can have a baby, doesn't mean she should. And doesn't mean that the man who provided the male half of the DNA should be responsible. "

Yes, that's right.

And in my friend's situation, he *is* and has made every payment required, on time, too.

And in that same situation, the woman moved back in with her lover in the first trimester of the pregnancy, before even knowing she was pregnant ... and her lover considers himself the father of the child ... and it's apparent that she only went about getting into the relationship with our friend to get sperm.

Friend has accepted the obligation that the courts and society impose on a man who biologically fathers a child. But the child *is* living with a father, who was there from, well, right after the beginning of the pregnancy, and who considers himself her father.

So Friend is essentially paying support for this other man's child.

Maybe analogous to requiring the biological father of an adopted child to pay support to the adoptive parents ...
although not a 100 percent precise analogy.

A moral gray area, I know. But in this case, those are the facts.

And through our involvement with Friend's situation, we've heard of other cases, again like the one I originally posted about (divorced couple, she uses their frozen-while-married embryos to have a child, and her ex still has to pay support) ... and while they're not common, they *do* happen.

It's not an affirmative action type of thing, where some men (who are in that gray area) have to pay so that the wrongs perpetrated against all women are rectified. It's really not. Or at least it shouldn't be.

And the point's been made but will state it again plain: NO ONE on this thread has stated men shouldn't pay for the children they make.

NO ONE.
 
#131 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowy Owl
Until then, I am going to leave this thread because of the unsubstantiated claims and sweeping generalizations.
you have been a model of decorum under a barrage of considerable antagonism. this bag 'o' popcorn seems to be bottomless, you're welcome to pull up a chair and watch the rest of this food fight from the sidelines.


:
 
#132 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by dado
you have been a model of decorum under a barrage of considerable antagonism. this bag 'o' popcorn seems to be bottomless, you're welcome to pull up a chair and watch the rest of this food fight from the sidelines.
Why, you flatter me, dado....

I could say, straying more from the op, that from what I have seen, I question the way men who owe child support and can't/won't pay have their driver's licenses taken away (in the province where I grew up) and that kind of thing. But, honestly, I don't know what it is like to try to get child support from someone...I am not a single mom and I know if I seperated my ex-dh would never try to pull something like that.
So I can understand if some of the seething anger that seems to be at the heart of some of the posts in this thread is based on such an experience. I know a few people who have gotten pregnant, are raising the kid, and are going it alone without any help from the fathers, and they prefer it that way, just because they don't want these people in their lives. I don't know how they would feel reading an article like that.
 
#133 ·
Quote:
... by candiland
... So why do you and Kama keep insisting that men shouldn't pay for the children they make?



Haven't said that "men shouldn't pay for the children they make." I have said that there are moral gray areas. And that there are certain issues that should make it only fair for a legally-obligated biological father to have legal options, to perhaps contest the level of child support.

For example, in Friend's case, the mother is living with her lover, who is for all intents and purposes the child's father. They have been together now for 20 years (it was 10 years when she met Friend). And she was even depositing the child support checks into her lover's account, since he was cosigning the endorsements on the back of the check every month. (And yeah, that made Friend feel just ducky.
: )

So in that case isn't there a gray area, where perhaps fairness dictates that Friend should not have to pay the full standard child support percentage of his (already low-income) salary? And should he be responsible for the child's college education, as he is currently? After all, now she's got 3 adults to pay for it ... mother, lover, and Friend. And because of that, Friend is totally and completely unable to even consider helping finance any part of his family's future education. Why is that fair?

Think about that. He was duped by a con artist, nothing less. I've worked trials where people went to jail for con games that involved much less financial loss and personal suffering.

But he has no recourse, and should have no recourse, everyone seems to be insisting, because his DNA is allegedly part of this child (and I said 'allegedly' because the blood tests were not 100% dispositive on the issue, only 90-something%, but the Judge told Friend and his lawyer that she would not remove from the child the presumption of legitimacy ... as I previously posted about it).

And again, the case I've repeatedly cited with the frozen embryos, should the biological father have to pay the full standard obligation, because this woman made a choice on her own, outside of a marriage, to make him become a parent against his will? And yes, he did try to stop her from using the embryos, but lost the court battle. But he does have to pay. And because he is genetically the father, he has no choice and no recourse ... and so the court system of his state has told him (can't remember where it was, someplace in the middle of the country ...)

Maybe he should have considered the possibility of this happening before he donating the sperm to make the embryo, so perhaps he should pay something. And apparently he does. But should he have to pay the full support levels? Should he have to take responsibility for the child's college expenses ... etc., etc., etc.
 
#135 ·
Hmmm. really interesting. Hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

Although the op was about a mans responsibility when he and a woman get pregnant, its interesting that no one seems to have thought of mens rightsand mens CHOICES.
Although I don't agree at all with marilyn...of course men should be fininciallly responsible, if nothing more......what about mens rights as far as deciding that he WANTS to be a dad?a woman can choose an abortion, a man can't(nor should he, imo, ) but he also can't choose to be a dad.

When a man has sex he can create a baby, which he SHOULD be prepared to care for, financially and emotionally. when a woman has sex she shoud be prepared to accept that a child could be concieved, and that the father of that child may not help her. financially or otherwise. (NOT saying this is right, or fair or otherwise... its just a fact) Some men don't take responsibility. We all agree on that, right?. Does anyone feel that woman out there have sex not knowing that this is a possibility?

When a man has sex with a woman, and said woman becomes pregnant,the man no longer has options. It becomes totally the womans choice. (which can definitley be a burden on a woman, I know...) She can choose to carry the child and raise it... she can choose an abortion. She can choose adoption.An ideal scenario is that she and he raise the childtogether.

hmm. it seems that when men and women decide to have sex, they both know what the result could be. She has options. He does not.
 
#136 ·
I've been
: since the beginning on this thread, and I just wanted to say, that the last post (BAU3) made a great point about men not having a choice after the initial to have sex.

I intend to teach my children all kinds of things about sex, mainly how beautiful it is/ can be
. I also intend to teach them what it seems should be obvious but people have forgotten (or choose to ignore).

Girls- "sex can be beautiful- but, it can also be forced on you- which is evil, if you have sex willingly- it is possible that a baby will then be concieved- it's quite a natural thing. When you chose to have sex with someone- realize that it could result in you becoming a mother- with that man (whomever he may be) as the father. Will he be a good father? Then you will have to decide whether or not to keep the baby. Will you raise the baby yourself? Will you raise the baby with said man? What if he leaves? Are you ready to make a decision should you get pregnant? Are you ready to take on the responsibility of another life? and on and on and on......"

Boys- "sex can be beautiful- but it also can come with a huge amount of responsibility, a baby could be conceived. Are you ready to be a father? Is the woman you are with ready to be a mother? Will she be a good mother? Are you able to physically/emotionally/financially support a child? Are you ready to leave your future up to this woman? What if you are willing to be a father, and she decides to have an abortion, how would you feel? What if she decides to leave your name off of the birth cerificate? What if she wants to get married? What if she wants to give the baby up for adoption? You realize that once she is pregnant- you have no true choice/say in any of what happens, you are along for the ride- all of the choices left are hers, your child's life will be in her hands, as will your involvement in the child's life be, and on and on and on....."

I wish I could just stick to the "sex is beautiful" part, but there will be so much more to teach. So much more.

We need to teach our sons and daughters about all of these scenarios, and truly help them to be prepared. That way hopefully they will make wise choices- sure some will still be "duped" either way, there are truly nasty people out there who take advantage of good people (Amy's friend- my heart goes out to him, and so many women who are doing it all alone without enough money).

I think the entire issue is an issue of personal responsibility. I don't think any of it is "fair" necessarily, but I intend to teach my kids all about every bit of it, so they can never be in a position where they are claiming ignorance, and hopefully none of them will ever have to "play the fool" b/c not only would they be hurt- but my precious grandkids would be too
 
#138 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by merpk
...Think about that. He was duped by a con artist, nothing less...
I know this person is your friend, so you can probably make an educated guess...does he know that intercourse between a man and a woman can result in a baby? If he does, then who is the con artist in your senario? Further, if I'm remembering correctly, he also married this woman he hardly knew. And your friend's position is not that he made poor choices but rather that she conned him?

It's sad when people treat each other poorly, especially when a chid is involved. But that's not the same as being taken by a con artist, although a lot of people prefer to believe that instead of owning their mistakes.

Quote:
Originally posted by merpk
[/i] ... and while they're not common, they *do* happen...And the point's been made but will state it again plain: NO ONE on this thread has stated men shouldn't pay for the children they make...
So, I'll go back to my question...if everyone here agrees that children are entitled to support, then what are we all still doing here? What purpose does gossiping about other families serve? Unless you're proposing that laws be changed to cover the exception (& how would that even work?), then I don't understand this.

It seems like whenever this topic comes up, no matter if I'm on-line or in real life, people are anxious to jump in with some story about a "theiving whore". What is the point of gossiping about these women?
 
#139 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by jess7396
...I wish I could just stick to the "sex is beautiful" part, but there will be so much more to teach. So much more...

I think the entire issue is an issue of personal responsibility. I don't think any of it is "fair" necessarily, but I intend to teach my kids all about every bit of it, so they can never be in a position where they are claiming ignorance, and hopefully none of them will ever have to "play the fool" b/c not only would they be hurt- but my precious grandkids would be too
Well said!

My son is 11 and we've already had some of these talks. It's not easy, I too wish I could stick with the positive aspects of sex but that's just not the way the world is.
 
#140 ·
I think BAU put it very well, and reiterated a point I made earlier, to which I don't believe anyone has responded.

We all seem to agree that it is irresponsible to have sex with someone assuming that either a) they are on birth control (even if they tell you they are and b) that said birth control is a guarantee against conception.

Agreed, right? You really can't argue that a man doesn't know what might happen.

But why is nobody arguing the same for the woman? If you are a women who could NOT afford to keep a child should you get pregnant, why aren't you any more to blame? and what gives you the right to decide you want to keep it when the only way you can do that is to sue the guy (who has no choice as to whether or not he wants to be a parent)?

Also, nobody has responded to my other point about whether getting money out of a guy who simply doesn't want to be a parent (and thus opening up the door for him to traipse in and out of your kids life, breaking their heart and maybe their spirit) is really the "best thing for the child" or just write off the loser and raise your kid YOUR way with "name unknown" on the birth certificate.

I can honestly say that cases like Amy's friend are the rare exception. I would venture to guess that many of the men who must be actively persued for child support are the kind of jerk who would make a lousy role model and father. I can't see how kids are better off with that sort of influence in their lives. Cuz the minute you accept that paycheck, you have to let them be involved.

I mean, poverty sucks and all, but isn't emotional health and raising your kid the way you want them to be raised worth more than money? Wouldn't you rather be poor and have your kid be emotionally whole and closely bonded with his trusting mother, or handed off every few days/weeks/months to a dude he/she doesn't really know, desperately wants to put up on a pedestal (b/c that is what kids do), and whose heart gets broken repeatedly or worse, whose spirit gets crushed by pathetic parenting skills. Not to mention what pugmadmama said about the story of his conception being made known to him at some point in his life.
 
#142 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
...But why is nobody arguing the same for the woman? If you are a women who could NOT afford to keep a child should you get pregnant, why aren't you any more to blame? ...
Why does it have to be about blame on the mother or the father? I don't think making judgement calls about the father or the mother is productive. What good can come of that? How in the world can you answer the question, "and what gives you the right to decide you want to keep it when the only way you can do that is to sue the guy" or "she said she was on the pill" or "he said he was sterile".

I'm just not going to put my time and energy into arguing that the man or the woman in any of these stories need to change their behavior...because history quickly shows us that both men and women have a tendancy to behave a bit outside of what we might consider "ideal" when it comes to sex.

My arguement is simply that both parents are responsible for the child they created once that child is born.

Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
...Also, nobody has responded to my other point about whether getting money out of a guy who simply doesn't want to be a parent (and thus opening up the door for him to traipse in and out of your kids life, breaking their heart and maybe their spirit) is really the "best thing for the child" or just write off the loser and raise your kid YOUR way with "name unknown" on the birth certificate....I mean, poverty sucks and all, but isn't emotional health and raising your kid the way you want them to be raised worth more than money?...
I think that is very easy to say when you have a loving partner, a home, a job, etc. I'm can't judge women who keep less-than-ideal men in their kids lives so that they can keep a roof over their kids head and food on the table.

I also think it's human nature to hope people will change. It's easy to be on the outside of a situation and say "she should dump that loser!". It rarely looks that clear-cut when you're the person on the inside.
 
#144 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowy Owl
Is that true?
No, it's not true in all cases. But it's very difficult to get an order for child support without visitation. At least it was difficult when I was working in family court in Texas. Maybe other states are more progressive on that front, I hope so.

Quote:
Originally posted by Shenjall
actually, even if they dont pay a freakin dime, they still are allowed access. child support and access have nothing to do with each other. this is unfortunatly something I'm dealing with right now......
I'm sorry you're having to deal with this.
 
#146 ·
Piglet, that is so hard to answer. I mean, sure in the abstract it's easy to make a case for letting Mr Loser keep his filthy lucre, live in a simple style as you choose without interference, etc... but it's just not that simple. How is this woman making a living and caring for her child alone? Who is tending the child while she works and at what expense to her? How many jobs/ hours a week is she working to manage this. All those things have a real direct efect on the childs life. And yes, a strong support network of family, friends and social services can make a difference but will it be enough? It's not impossible. My sister did it for a few years with a lot of assistance from family, some government assistance and a bit of good fortune here and there... but it was hard as hell.

Additionally there is the question of a childs right to it's parents. Not just to their physical support but the basic knowledge of them and their history as well as a reciprocal acknowledgement of the child. Virtually all of us have a yen to know our stories... from whence we came, how we got here, etc... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with cutting children off from that as we did for decades with closed adoptions. Even professional sperm donors provide some info.

I'm also very uncomfortable with the societal message that sends. "Fellas, it's not your problem. Inseminate away... the women will handle it." Unless we want to institute a simultaneous sperm tax on every man who cannot prove he is infertile to cover the money the women will require to make this family style work it would also serve as a huge step backwards in trying to pull women and dependent children out of poverty. Pug's right. The kids deserve better.
 
#147 ·
Quote:
If you are a women who could NOT afford to keep a child should you get pregnant, why aren't you any more to blame?
These women are at least willing to do the work of raising the child to adulthood. What she can't give in money, she gives in time, loving guidance, education, all the parenting stuff. The men often do nothing at all.
 
#148 ·
I would think it would be very difficult to make the man pay but deny him access to the child. In fact, I think I would find such an arrangement VERY unfair to the father - you're going to make him pay but he can't have anything to do with the kid?

I do agree, kama, that the situation is alot more complicated than just "take the money or leave it". I do have some friends who have gone this route: in fact I have three of them who have willingly let the man go with no money b/c they specifically didn't want him in their kid's life. For at least one of them, it's a daily struggle financially, but she and her son are soooo bonded and close, he is so loved and secure, even though he has been in daycare since he was tiny b/c she had to work.

Mind you, you also make the very important point that if society supported women more, more assistance to single mothers so they CAN stay home with their kids, chasing the men wouldn't be necessary.

I guess it goes back to pug's point: what does the child need? Well, if it's just money, then for god's sakes let the government and society pitch in, rather than chase some bum all over the country trying to get blood out of stone.

I do have to disagree with this whole "children have rights to know their parents" stuff though. I realize I don't speak for everybody, but as a happily adopted child I could care less where my genes come from. You aren't a parent because you contributed sperm. I think we tie too much into "blood" and too little into "family". So I don't see why kids "need" to know who the sperm donor was. But that, obviously, is my somewhat biased opinion.


Anyways, I must say this thread has given me much to think about!
 
#149 ·
Quote:
... by pugmadmama
... he also married this woman he hardly knew. And your friend's position is not that he made poor choices but rather that she conned him?
It's sad when people treat each other poorly, especially when a chid is involved. But that's not the same as being taken by a con artist, although a lot of people prefer to believe that instead of owning their mistakes ...
Not wanting to hijack this thread with Friend's sad tale any more than I already have ... but he married her intending to spend his life with her. Within weeks she took off, totally unexpectedly. He was devastated. We had to deal with it, too. And when he found her at her boyfriend's apartment, she essentially laughed. Called him on the phone and left a message on his answering machine that she was pregnant, too.

His only mistake was in getting married to someone he barely knew. He knows that's a mistake, believe me. And he owns his mistake, because he's paying for it for 20 years, plus life insurance policies and college tuition. Boy, does he own it.

She absolutely had an ulterior motive, and she absolutely is a con artist. And it's downright blatant, and the only way not to see it is if you're objectifying the woman as above reproach merely because she gave birth to a child.

Remember, before submitting her for sainthood, that she is *not* a single mother (despite her current official legal marital status). She has a live-in partner for 20 years now, who considers himself the child's father. But still happily cashes our Friend's checks.


Quote:
... by Piglet68
... the situation is a lot more complicated than just "take the money or leave it". I do have some friends who have gone this route: in fact I have three of them who have willingly let the man go with no money b/c they specifically didn't want him in their kid's life ...

Yes. And similarly, Friend made a conscious choice not to have any visitation or contact with the child, as the child was born into a family with a cohabitating mother and father (the boyfriend), and as Friend did not want the mother in his life. And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life.

Quote:
... ibid
... as a happily adopted child I could care less where my genes come from. You aren't a parent because you contributed sperm. I think we tie too much into "blood" and too little into "family". So I don't see why kids "need" to know who the sperm donor was. But that, obviously, is my somewhat biased opinion.
Amen.

Just to balance things, I also know single mothers, both by happy choice and by bad luck/bad choices. They also own their mistakes, don't they. There are gray areas for the mothers, too.

Quote:
... by kama'aina mama]
... pppssttt... Amy, she was being facetious. Note the laughter at the bottom of her post ...




:



 
#150 ·
Quote:
Mind you, you also make the very important point that if society supported women more, more assistance to single mothers so they CAN stay home with their kids, chasing the men wouldn't be necessary.
That is true. But I often make the point that if more fathers supported their children, less women would be on welfare. I guess as long as the child is being supported, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. But most people would prefer it came from the family and not the government.

I think a man who pays can be kept from visiting if he poses a danger to the child?
 
#151 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
I would think it would be very difficult to make the man pay but deny him access to the child. In fact, I think I would find such an arrangement VERY unfair to the father - you're going to make him pay but he can't have anything to do with the kid?...
The only situations I saw where the father was ordered to pay child support but had no visition where situations that involved abuse (sexual, physical and neglect). And, as I said, even those were very rare. What was far more common was that the father would be granted supervised visitation. Only when that had failed, repeatedly, would the the step be taken to completely sever visitation. Personally, I don't think that's unfair to the father.

Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
...I guess it goes back to pug's point: what does the child need? Well, if it's just money, then for god's sakes let the government and society pitch in, rather than chase some bum all over the country trying to get blood out of stone...
I don't agree with this. Many, if not most, of the fathers I saw in court could pay child support, they were just choosing not to as a way to punish the child's mother. These men would tell the judge a very compelling story about financial hardship, then my client's lawyer would ask where they got the money for the new Jetski, etc. It was absolutely maddening to sit through these hearings.

I think we need a combination of greatly expanded government benefits for single parents and a greatly expanded committment to collecting child support. In fact, an idea I've often pondered is to give single parents benefits out of goverment funds and then make it the government's responsibility to be reimbursed. It seems like when it's "just" children getting screwed over, no one cares. But I bet the government would care in a big hurry if they were the one getting blown off by a non-custodial parent who can afford to pay.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top