would you file for support in this situation? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 86 Old 01-24-2009, 10:18 PM
 
crayon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where snow drifts, drift....
Posts: 3,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I 100% agree with you. You have the right to terminate the pregnacy- however he does not. I think you are doing the responsible thing. He requested that he didn't want this baby and it was clear before hand he didn't want any more kids. You chose to keep this baby and I think it is respectful of you to tell him he does not have to be involved and you will not ask for anything from him. Because this baby is your choice.

People may try to say a baby is not a choice. But I am talking only in the terms of you had a choice to not have this baby- abortion- but your choice was to have him/her.

[B][I]~Ang~ Mom to 2 sport-head crazy girls: Rainey and Breeze  and my little lost love- @18 weeks with gestational age of 7 weeks
crayon is offline  
#62 of 86 Old 01-24-2009, 10:30 PM
Banned
 
ginger_rodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crayon View Post
He requested that he didn't want this baby and it was clear before hand he didn't want any more kids.
Yes. And the only way to make sure you get that, if you're a man, is to keep your penis out of vaginas. Stick it in, and share the consequences.

Seriously, I don't see what's difficult about this. I don't want a baby or an abortion; I stay away from penises. Not a big deal. I arrived on this earth furnished with two hands and along the way acquired a credit card and access to sex toys. That seems to take care of everything fine. Most guys I meet also have two hands and credit cards, and I take it they get by during dry spells.

I think I'll write a book called How To Stop Apologizing For Men.
ginger_rodgers is offline  
#63 of 86 Old 01-24-2009, 10:51 PM
 
Seasons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Host city of Laundryfest 2009
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
Yes. And the only way to make sure you get that, if you're a man, is to keep your penis out of vaginas. Stick it in, and share the consequences.

Seriously, I don't see what's difficult about this. I don't want a baby or an abortion; I stay away from penises. Not a big deal. I arrived on this earth furnished with two hands and along the way acquired a credit card and access to sex toys. That seems to take care of everything fine. Most guys I meet also have two hands and credit cards, and I take it they get by during dry spells.

I think I'll write a book called How To Stop Apologizing For Men.


The only thing you owe to others is to behave with integrity.
Seasons is offline  
#64 of 86 Old 01-24-2009, 11:15 PM
 
crayon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where snow drifts, drift....
Posts: 3,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
I think I'll write a book called How To Stop Apologizing For Men.

Who said anything about apologizing for men?

A woman can have an abortion or give a baby up for adoption or for that matter even put someone else as the birth father on a birth certificate. What I think is we should give men the equal right to say if they want to be a father. We give it to the mother and we should give it to the father. If he doesn't want to be part of his birth child's life, let him sign his rights away and not go after him for child support. We do not make a woman pay emotional damage support to a man for aborting a baby he wanted.

ETA: The OP said he requested an abortion, she said no and I think he has a right to terminate his rights to this child as a father.

Veggiemama4- don't worry about what people are telling you to do- do what you think is right for your baby and you.

[B][I]~Ang~ Mom to 2 sport-head crazy girls: Rainey and Breeze  and my little lost love- @18 weeks with gestational age of 7 weeks
crayon is offline  
#65 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 12:22 AM
Banned
 
ginger_rodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crayon View Post
Who said anything about apologizing for men?

A woman can have an abortion or give a baby up for adoption or for that matter even put someone else as the birth father on a birth certificate. What I think is we should give men the equal right to say if they want to be a father. We give it to the mother and we should give it to the father. If he doesn't want to be part of his birth child's life, let him sign his rights away and not go after him for child support. We do not make a woman pay emotional damage support to a man for aborting a baby he wanted.
Nope, doesn't work unless a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy can hand over the fertilized egg so the man can carry the baby and take on the attendant health risks and financial burden, and until she can walk away without the deep social stigma carried by women who don't have custody of their kids.
ginger_rodgers is offline  
#66 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 02:18 AM
 
MG01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
I have a feeling that those mamas who aren't going after c/s -- either out of a sense that this represents independence, or in order to steer clear of the dad -- are not paying attention to what kind of money we're talking about.

Assume c/s is $500/mo. If you start at birth, and save the money for education when the child turns 18, and you do it in some ultra-safe way where you beat inflation by only about 2%, the child will have:

$129,155 on his 19th birthday (in current dollars -- no worry about inflation).

But suppose you're thinking farther ahead than that, and don't want to be in boobybunny's aunt's terrible situation at age 60. You decide to save the money for your retirement so that your child doesn't spend his midlife trying to take care of you and pay for all of your expenses while also paying a mortgage/rent, supporting his own family, and trying to save for his own old age.

Suppose you're 24 years old and have a new baby. If you get c/s from age 0-19 for the child, $500/mo, and you save that money in safe places till you're 65, you'd have in the neighborhood of:

$200,000 in retirement savings (again, in current dollars). Which would spin off about $10,000 in income for you a year, invested safely at 5%.

If you were a slightly savvier investor and got about 4% above inflation, you'd have more like:

$300,000 in retirement savings, or an income just from interest of $15,000/yr.

So that's what you're giving up when you waive child support. It translates to the ability to send the child to college and start life without crushing debt, or the ability to let your child go on and take care of him/herself and family instead of trying to support you when you're old and sick.

Those are both major things, and, in my book, worth going through a lot of trouble for. I do understand that it's often difficult to get the c/s owing, but there are statutes of limitations for going after the money; often you'll have a good 20 years to collect. If the daddy has the money through a good chunk of the rest of his life, you can collect it, or your child can. So it's definitely worth having the right on paper.

As for exes being horrible when pressed for child support....When my ex filed, and I started reading about how these things go, it came clear pretty quickly that the usual thing for guys to do was to scare the women silly about custody and escape with all the money, leaving the women with all the responsibility. So I decided I wasn't going to fall for it. Yes, I'd gear up for a real custody fight, and stay vigilant about it. But I wasn't going to take it seriously -- I'd take it as a bluff.

And that's exactly what it was. My ex played stupid games right up to the week of our court date, and then turned aside in the game of chicken. And no, I wasn't going to do the woman thing where you go, "Anything, take anything, just don't hurt my baby." I went after reasonable money, too -- "reasonable" defined as "you helped make her, you pay half the real costs of raising her," which, frankly, does not account for his share of the parenting job that I do for him for free, which has some hefty costs for me -- and got all I asked for: obligation to college funding, childcare, a favorable asset split and payback schedule, the last word on health insurance, and more. Does he still play games? You bet. So now I just deal with them like an administrator. Collect the paperwork and have it ready in case I have reason to act.

20 years ago, I probably would've let a lot more go. But unless you have reason to believe the guy is going to physically harm you and your kids, I don't think there's any reason to fall for the guff.

So there is my spiel on why it's worth it to gird the old loins there and go get the money.
You make good points here- honestly, I had thought a lot more about this issue in terms of support being applied towards daily or immediate expenses.. I hadn't thought about it as much in the context of college/retirement, etc. 20-30-40 years down the road. That does make sense, and I can understand the idea that while child support might not be needed for a child to have their day to day needs met, it could certainly help to prevent future burdens such as educational debt or supporting a sick parent in their retirement. Something to think about.

That said, I do like knowing that child support is a legal right whenever one pursues it- that one could choose not to file right away and still have the option down the road, so choosing not to file immediately does not forever get rid of that choice/right. I guess even in light of your post, I still (in my situation) would have ambivalence about throwing the child support into things immediately, because I have fears/concerns and need to do what is best for my child and want to see what happens and what direction things go in naturally, without the confounding factor of money or court involvement. I need to know if my child's father intends to make changes or not, intends to be a hindrance or a help or simply a non-entity in this child's life, on his own accord. Perhaps at that point I will file.

As it is now, I believe I would be getting a minimal amount that may not even be worth it, considering (as in a fraction of the $500 figure mentioned.. perhaps $20-50). But my situation is confounded a bit by health insurance, in that I don't know yet if I will need state insurance for the babe or if I will get a plan that covers us both; it's a complicated situation with many convoluted factors, and I have to sit down with my attorneys and accountant and everyone and call my insurance company some more and try to make sense of it. There are ramifications either way; it's not as clear cut as some might think. So I might not even have the choice, in which case it is what it is and I understand the reasons. But if I do, those are my thoughts. And of course circumstances can and do and will change, on my end and x's.

I can see the benefit of having money saved up for those types of expenses, and how that would be of service to one's child's future needs and interests. I appreciate your post; as someone in a similar situation, I appreciate having new perspectives to consider even if we may disagree on some things

Part of it too, though, similar to veggiemama's situation, is that (not trying to apologize for men here! ) in my case we were casually dating, had just slept together for the first time, and it was clear before and after said intercourse and when the pregnancy was discovered that he had no intentions to be a father, and didn't feel the desire or capability to do so. I do feel that in this situation, it makes sense for me not to file, because again I made this choice for me and would like to think that he would also have some choice in the matter, albeit in a different way. But I understand it is not that clear-cut, and I do feel that the child's future and needs, once the mama decides to carry the pregnancy and parent the child, come before anything else; that adults can have choices but that the child's interests have to be the priority. I do believe in many cases, either filing or not filing can both be rooted in the child's best interests, on the mama's end. I guess it would be nice that, even though the mama has the "choice" and also the responsibility of carrying the pregnancy, for the father to also take on an investment and sense of responsibility to some extent, but it's a conundrum when he doesn't- to what extent should we go to enforce that, yk? I do see how that is a problem, because both parties engaged in sex, and neither wanted to get pregnant- so while the woman has the "choice" it also makes sense that both had an equal role in the creation of the child and both should take responsibility for that- so I don't know! What a complicate issue.. but essentially I don't feel it can be boiled down to one clear cut answer so much as that it really depends on the people and situation involved..

I wouldn't fault OP for making either choice. Like I said before I would tend not to file if the child's needs would be met without doing so, but I also think there are good reasons to file and that you would not be "wronging" the father by doing so, and that thinking ahead beyond the immediate needs of the child and daily expenses is a prudent approach.

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world"
DS Feb 2009
MG01 is offline  
#67 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 03:02 AM
Banned
 
ginger_rodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama_Gaia View Post
As it is now, I believe I would be getting a minimal amount that may not even be worth it, considering (as in a fraction of the $500 figure mentioned.. perhaps $20-50).
Food for thought:

I'm 40 now. When I was 25, I was involved with a total deadbeat "filmmaker" who'd left his wife and little boy. I met him working retail; he quickly became my couch leech, and I actually (dumb!) sweet-talked my judge friend so my bf didn't go to jail for nonsupport. I eventually threw him out, and remember a completely pathetic phone conversation in which he said he couldn't get a paper and look through want ads because he only had 17 cents. In the world.

Nine years later, the same guy was well-established enough as a screenwriter and producer in Hollywood to bring his wife and kid out and keep her as a stay-home mom. And that's how it's been ever since.

Don't look at today and assume it's always going to be that way. Similarly, don't assume you'll always be able to go to court and get c/s stretching back forever in the absence of an order. Laws change, standards change, mores change, situations change. If you want the money, it's better to nail down the obligation on paper asap.
ginger_rodgers is offline  
#68 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 12:32 PM
 
crayon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where snow drifts, drift....
Posts: 3,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
Nope, doesn't work unless a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy can hand over the fertilized egg so the man can carry the baby and take on the attendant health risks and financial burden, and until she can walk away without the deep social stigma carried by women who don't have custody of their kids.
Oh that is just so Sci-Fi. All I am saying is that if a man has said from day one he does not want a child he should have the right to terminate his rights and responsibilities (given a short time period). You can not say that men do not have a stigma when they do not have custody of their kids- it is called: deadbeat dad.

I would much rather have a father to my child who wants to be there as apposed to fighting with someone to step up who never wanted to be there in the first place.

Knowing full well this man doesn't want a baby is saying that she understands this is "burden" (so to speak, but not in reality, just no better word) is hers to carry- by her choice. I think there should be more support for a mother who says, I understand you don't want this baby but I do. So, lets clear this up right now and understand I will take the responsibility for my choice of continuing with a pregnancy you do not want. I will take my responsibility in choosing life and I will not ask you for anything because this was my choice.

I have seen the damage that can happen when you try to force a parent to be a parent and they end up in the end hurting the child. If in the beginning it was understood the parent didn't want this child and it is dealt with at that point as to what responsibilities each bio-parent would have to a child.

Veggiemama, My best friend had a baby with (at the time her husband). Once they split, her child was under a year, she told him that she would not go after him for CS if he gave her all the legal rights to their child and if he paid for things as need. They had agreed on things, like school supplies, new coat, boots, hats, supplies every year. He agreed and it has worked out wonderful for them. He is still the father and sees his child twice a year (they live apart) and he splits the flight bills with my BF. And when my BF has bills that need to be paid, Hockey, coats, school stuff, what nots, then she calls him and tells him how much and he is happy to pay.

Just one idea of how it doesn't have to be so harsh and they both got what they wanted and their child is well rounded and feels loved.

[B][I]~Ang~ Mom to 2 sport-head crazy girls: Rainey and Breeze  and my little lost love- @18 weeks with gestational age of 7 weeks
crayon is offline  
#69 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 12:37 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes, of course I would file. You both chose to have sex, you both chose protection knowing protection fails. It is not incumbent on you to have unwanted surgery as extra reassurance. You both risked pregnancy (well, low risk, but you took the same risk). You both now have a child. Your child deserves the financial support of both parents.

IMO you have a duty to file.
thismama is offline  
#70 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 01:37 PM
Banned
 
ginger_rodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crayon View Post
Oh that is just so Sci-Fi. All I am saying is that if a man has said from day one he does not want a child he should have the right to terminate his rights and responsibilities (given a short time period). You can not say that men do not have a stigma when they do not have custody of their kids- it is called: deadbeat dad.
Try talking to some women who don't have custody of their children. The standards society applies to men and women who walk away from their children are radically different. The mother who has no custody but pays child support is much, much lower on the totem pole than the deadbeat dad; people expect guys to be skunks and incompetents (yeah, child support is rough, you do get behind, etc.), but the woman who willingly walked away from custody of her kids must be a real monster, or have something terribly wrong with her. She must be a drug addict, or a serious alcoholic, or maybe she's dangerously mentally ill. Or maybe she's just unthinkably cold and selfish. Not to love her own kids and want to have them with her.

If you don't think this is so, try an experiment. The next time you want a promotion, tell someone you thought your kids would've been better off with their dad. That they really need him more, you're not around much anyway, and that you'd have been willing to pay child support (even though the amounts are ridiculous, your ex would be living it up, no doubt), but you just felt the need for everyone to move on. You just want more freedom; maybe you'll try again with another family.

Betcha don't get that promotion, and I bet the social atmosphere around you changes considerably. If people where you work are nice, you'll be urged into counseling and people will fear you're suicidal. If not, they'll just move away from you. You should probably have another job lined up before you try this, btw.

If a man has said from day one that he absolutely, categorically doesn't want a child, then from day one he needs to keep his pants zipped. The burden of parenthood falls much more heavily on women than it does on men. It's a fantasy to think there is some sort of equality in the way that men and women can walk away from children. So much so, in fact, that when I posit a real equality, you call it science fiction.

Quote:
I would much rather have a father to my child who wants to be there as apposed to fighting with someone to step up who never wanted to be there in the first place.
Fatherhood is about considerably more than money. Child support is a nod to the reality that children cost money to raise, the equivalent of "you break it, you bought it". Nobody can force a man to be a father. The courts can, however, force a man to support the child he helped make. And if he's unhappy about that prospect, why, there's a simple solution: Keep penis out of vagina.

Quote:
Knowing full well this man doesn't want a baby is saying that she understands this is "burden" (so to speak, but not in reality, just no better word) is hers to carry- by her choice. I think there should be more support for a mother who says, I understand you don't want this baby but I do. So, lets clear this up right now and understand I will take the responsibility for my choice of continuing with a pregnancy you do not want. I will take my responsibility in choosing life and I will not ask you for anything because this was my choice.
There is support for this, and it involves a lot of paperwork explicitly stating this very thing. The paperwork gets signed in the absence of booze, desperation for companionship, abuse, obvious financial idiocy, and a deep desire to get laid. It's called a sperm bank. If you want a particular guy's sperm, and really mean all of the above, you're both free to make the hookup with all legal protections in place, for both of you.

In other situations, the consequences for a moment of any of the above are too great to consider absolving the guy of responsibility that lightly.

Quote:
I have seen the damage that can happen when you try to force a parent to be a parent and they end up in the end hurting the child. If in the beginning it was understood the parent didn't want this child and it is dealt with at that point as to what responsibilities each bio-parent would have to a child.
You're still confusing financial support with fathering. Children are not hurt by the garnishing of wages of a guy they never see. They're hurt by the absence of the guy, maybe, but not the garnishing.

Quote:
Veggiemama, My best friend had a baby with (at the time her husband). Once they split, her child was under a year, she told him that she would not go after him for CS if he gave her all the legal rights to their child and if he paid for things as need. They had agreed on things, like school supplies, new coat, boots, hats, supplies every year. He agreed and it has worked out wonderful for them. He is still the father and sees his child twice a year (they live apart) and he splits the flight bills with my BF. And when my BF has bills that need to be paid, Hockey, coats, school stuff, what nots, then she calls him and tells him how much and he is happy to pay.

Just one idea of how it doesn't have to be so harsh and they both got what they wanted and their child is well rounded and feels loved.
That's great, and it does happen. From what I've seen here and in real life, unfortunately, it's also relatively rare. If your best friend's guy eventually flaked, I'd encourage her to go get the child support order and have it enforced. I'd also encourage her to talk a clear look at her finances, not just month to month but with an eye to the long term, and see if she's carrying too much of the financial burden of raising her son. There are good reasons why the courts split financial matters from issues like legal custody.

How did your friend manage to get a judge to sign off on that deal, btw?
ginger_rodgers is offline  
#71 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 04:03 PM
 
Swan3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just passing by but I don't think that it is fair for him not to take responsibility. You both made the effort to avoid, it didn't work, you're keeping the baby which is his and that's just now his reality. Whether he wanted the child or not, the child will be there and his responsibility now is to support the baby.

this must be such a difficult situation. Hope you can work it all out, and in my opinion, YES you should file! He had within his scope of decision-making: having sex, using protection, taking responsibility for the outcome....outside of his scope: deciding what you do with your body and your child.

Just another thought after reading some of the posts here, if you decide not to file for support - have him sign away his rights as a father, this way you have a legal guarantee that he won't pull any funny stuff on you later and make DC's life difficult. It should be telling to see what his reaction to that request would be...
Swan3 is offline  
#72 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 04:15 PM
 
Goodmom2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=crayon;13060929]

ETA: The OP said he requested an abortion, she said no and I think he has a right to terminate his rights to this child as a father. [QUOTE]


No, he does not. Enough said.
Goodmom2008 is offline  
#73 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 08:09 PM
 
crayon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where snow drifts, drift....
Posts: 3,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
Try talking to some women who don't have custody of their children. The standards society applies to men and women who walk away from their children are radically different. The mother who has no custody but pays child support is much, much lower on the totem pole than the deadbeat dad; people expect guys to be skunks and incompetents (yeah, child support is rough, you do get behind, etc.), but the woman who willingly walked away from custody of her kids must be a real monster, or have something terribly wrong with her. She must be a drug addict, or a serious alcoholic, or maybe she's dangerously mentally ill. Or maybe she's just unthinkably cold and selfish. Not to love her own kids and want to have them with her.
True they are radically different (the way men and women are treated). But that doesn't make one better or worse than another. It is unfair to both men and women who are not primary caregivers. Although I do not think people expect guys to be skunks and incompetents- most men love their children and do right by them (women as well).

Quote:
If you don't think this is so, try an experiment. The next time you want a promotion, tell someone you thought your kids would've been better off with their dad. That they really need him more, you're not around much anyway, and that you'd have been willing to pay child support (even though the amounts are ridiculous, your ex would be living it up, no doubt), but you just felt the need for everyone to move on. You just want more freedom; maybe you'll try again with another family.


Betcha don't get that promotion, and I bet the social atmosphere around you changes considerably. If people where you work are nice, you'll be urged into counseling and people will fear you're suicidal. If not, they'll just move away from you. You should probably have another job lined up before you try this, btw.
That is just absurd. This is not about me- but my kids were wanted by both parents. And I don't think CS is for people to live it up and to give someone else the freedom to try again later. The whole thing is condescending and rude.

Quote:
If a man has said from day one that he absolutely, categorically doesn't want a child, then from day one he needs to keep his pants zipped. The burden of parenthood falls much more heavily on women than it does on men. It's a fantasy to think there is some sort of equality in the way that men and women can walk away from children. So much so, in fact, that when I posit a real equality, you call it science fiction.
I called it sci-fi because you were talking about handing a man over a fertilized egg- and when that happens come talk to you about equality. That is so fake. I do not think the burden of parenthood falls much more on a woman than a man. I think that women are the ones that are often the ones left as a single primary parent when there is a split. But to say that women are the ones who carry most of the parenting is just not true in most cases.



Quote:
Fatherhood is about considerably more than money. Child support is a nod to the reality that children cost money to raise, the equivalent of "you break it, you bought it". Nobody can force a man to be a father. The courts can, however, force a man to support the child he helped make. And if he's unhappy about that prospect, why, there's a simple solution: Keep penis out of vagina.
I have no problem with men taking care of their kids, emotionally or financially. What I do have a problem with is when a woman says that she would rather not go for CS that we view her as weak or that we tell her she is doing a disservice to her child by taking the full responsibility of a child that (prior to conception) it was understood the man did not want. Now if she wanted to go for CS, fine, I agree that she has the right (although I do think he should have the right to terminate his rights). But we should not come down on a woman for saying she doesn't want nor need his money to fully support her child.


Quote:
There is support for this, and it involves a lot of paperwork explicitly stating this very thing. The paperwork gets signed in the absence of booze, desperation for companionship, abuse, obvious financial idiocy, and a deep desire to get laid. It's called a sperm bank. If you want a particular guy's sperm, and really mean all of the above, you're both free to make the hookup with all legal protections in place, for both of you.
Again, very condescending. This covers my above comment.

Quote:
In other situations, the consequences for a moment of any of the above are too great to consider absolving the guy of responsibility that lightly.
I am not saying anyone should take anything lightly.


Quote:
You're still confusing financial support with fathering. Children are not hurt by the garnishing of wages of a guy they never see. They're hurt by the absence of the guy, maybe, but not the garnishing.
I am not confusing the two and please don't imply that I am. This man said he didn't want to be the father and it was clear from the start he wanted no responsibility of a child. She can go after him, it is her right. But she doesn't want to and I see no reason why that is a problem.


Quote:
That's great, and it does happen. From what I've seen here and in real life, unfortunately, it's also relatively rare. If your best friend's guy eventually flaked, I'd encourage her to go get the child support order and have it enforced. I'd also encourage her to talk a clear look at her finances, not just month to month but with an eye to the long term, and see if she's carrying too much of the financial burden of raising her son. There are good reasons why the courts split financial matters from issues like legal custody.

How did your friend manage to get a judge to sign off on that deal, btw?
My BF child is well into her teens and there is no need to look at her financial situation- she is just fine. Sure it is rare, but from the start they agreed on this and there was no reason for a judge to implement CS if they never asked. It was written for the start this is how they would raise their child and it has worked out for them. I never said he didn't pay- he pays for lots of stuff, but it is not a check every month, and her and her child do not need that to have a good, safe or stable life.

There are many situations that can work. Just because there is a CS order does not mean a man will pay. My nephew is 10 and I think my sister has maybe got 1 year worth of CS. His father fell off the face of the earth and works under the table. She will most likely never get the CS for my nephew that is ordered.

My BIL has custody of my niece and her mother is way behind as well, but when she gets hauled in for back support they make her pay $100 or less and she is out again, with a payment plan she never follows- almost 7 years later.

I would think making a friendly arrangement- if possible-is best. If it is "when little Jonny needs this or that or goes here or there it is paid by you (mom or dad)" And these thing can be written up in a legal format.

[B][I]~Ang~ Mom to 2 sport-head crazy girls: Rainey and Breeze  and my little lost love- @18 weeks with gestational age of 7 weeks
crayon is offline  
#74 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 08:12 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What a world it would be if women and men could have sex, the woman gets pregnant, and she has to have surgery to avoid parental responsibility, but he just has to say 'oops didn't mean for that to happen.' Oh yeah, that's where we want to be headed...
thismama is offline  
#75 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 08:23 PM
 
crayon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where snow drifts, drift....
Posts: 3,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
What a world it would be if women and men could have sex, the woman gets pregnant, and she has to have surgery to avoid parental responsibility, but he just has to say 'oops didn't mean for that to happen.' Oh yeah, that's where we want to be headed...
It is called equal rights. If a woman can terminate a pregnancy and (as you say) "avoid parental responsibility" or sign her rights away in the form of adoption we should give men equal rights to "avoid parental responsibility" by allowing them to terminate their rights away.

Just because a man doesn't have a uterus, does not mean he does not have rights.

And the keep it in your pants comments are pretty lame. It is like telling a woman who is going to have an abortion that she should have kept her legs crossed- I can not see a woman saying that to another woman, but yet we blame a man and tell him he should have kept it in his pants, oh too bad.

[B][I]~Ang~ Mom to 2 sport-head crazy girls: Rainey and Breeze  and my little lost love- @18 weeks with gestational age of 7 weeks
crayon is offline  
#76 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 08:29 PM
 
eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Mexico
Posts: 7,867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crayon View Post
It is called equal rights. If a woman can terminate a pregnancy and (as you say) "avoid parental responsibility" or sign her rights away in the form of adoption we should give men equal rights to "avoid parental responsibility" by allowing them to terminate their rights away.

Men and women have the same rights when it comes to signing away rights for adoption - a woman cannot legally do this without the consent of the father, just as a man can't do it without the consent of a mother.
eclipse is offline  
#77 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 09:37 PM
 
crayon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where snow drifts, drift....
Posts: 3,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Men and women have the same rights when it comes to signing away rights for adoption - a woman cannot legally do this without the consent of the father, just as a man can't do it without the consent of a mother.
Sadly that is not true. In many states the laws read similar to this: (this is Kentucky)

Who Must Consent to an Adoption
Citation: Rev. Stat. § 199.500
An adoption shall not be granted without the voluntary and informed consent of:

* The living parent or parents of a child born in lawful wedlock
* The mother of the child born out of wedlock
* The father of the child born out of wedlock, if paternity is established in a legal action or in an affidavit acknowledging paternity of the child

[B][I]~Ang~ Mom to 2 sport-head crazy girls: Rainey and Breeze  and my little lost love- @18 weeks with gestational age of 7 weeks
crayon is offline  
#78 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 09:51 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
so he's oppressed because instead of birthing a child out of his body he has to make a signed statement that he is the parent? not really following the logic here...
thismama is offline  
#79 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 10:10 PM
 
eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Mexico
Posts: 7,867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If there are laws like this in a state a man lives in, then he needs to keep track of who he sleeps with to make sure they aren't pregnant and not telling him. Unless there are laws preventing him from saying - hey, I slept with that woman during the time frame in which she got pregnant, and I want a court order to establish whether I am the father or not. "
eclipse is offline  
#80 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 10:13 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
it sounds to me like all he would have to do is make an affidavit saying he is the father. that's pretty straightforward, hardly a big huge process. you know, compared to giving BIRTH.
thismama is offline  
#81 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 10:26 PM
 
eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Mexico
Posts: 7,867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that the arguement is that, theoretically, a woman could get pregnant, never tell the guy, and give the baby up for adoption.
eclipse is offline  
#82 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 10:32 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
oh! theoretically, yes that's true. that darned biology.
thismama is offline  
#83 of 86 Old 01-25-2009, 11:31 PM
 
Smithie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
"...if you specifically don't want to risk having a child, you should specifically not have sex."

I don't accept that fate for myself, and I would do everything possible to avoid inflicting it on another person. If my child's security were seriously in jeopardy, I'd seek financial support from an unwilling father. Of course, I'd also turn tricks or rob Quickie Marts to take care of my kids, so clearly my usual ethics go out the window when their welfare is involved.

As a taxpayer, my preference is to support mothers who choose to be single parents. IME, if a woman wants the biodad completely out of the picture, there is a good reason.
Smithie is offline  
#84 of 86 Old 01-26-2009, 12:28 AM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

As a taxpayer, my preference is to support mothers who choose to be single parents. IME, if a woman wants the biodad completely out of the picture, there is a good reason.
i agree with this...
thismama is offline  
#85 of 86 Old 01-26-2009, 01:47 PM
Banned
 
ginger_rodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mm. Me, not so much. I'm more in favor of:

1. Doing whatever's necessary to divorce laws to prevent people from using custody issues as an intimidation device;

2. Getting much more effective at keeping dangerous exes away from parents and kids;

3. Building work camps and using ankle bracelets to help men who father children support them to the tune of half their real expenses, if the men can't quite get up the head of steam to do it on their own. I think it'd be nifty to have those camps run by married ex-Marines.
ginger_rodgers is offline  
#86 of 86 Old 01-26-2009, 05:53 PM
 
Smithie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
#3 does have some appeal

But until I see some real progress on 1 and 2, I'd like mamas to be able to drop right off the biodad's radar and know that they'll have health insurance, a place to live and enough to eat. Their child, after all, is part of MY future. Tending to their welfare plays a part in whether the world I grow old in is a nice place or a scary place.
Smithie is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off