Mother's Right... Father's Wronged?

[slyc_willie]

I am looking at it through the eyes of a woman that has been at the bar, the truck stop, the club and seen the guys that just 'need it' or whatever. No, I am not saying that there are not women like that out there but we are not talking about women we are talking about a this one guy in this one situation. But as we all know this one situation sets a precident for all other similar situations that may crop up. I believe that she has a right to decide this matter for herself, especially since she decided that the best parenting choice she could make for the betterment of the child was to give it up for adoption so that it would have a chance at a better life then the one that she believed she would provide. I think that takes an amazing amount of courage to do. It was a one night stand... ONE night... not oodles, not a relationship... just one night.

If in the future... something like that happened then so be it... but again... that's not right now and not what the mother decided.

Then we agree.

She has the right to hide the pregnancy and subsequent child.

But the father has rights IF he later discovers the truth, as well.

And it's only a one night stand after the fact, unless both partners say, 'After tonight, we won't see each other again.' Honestly, how often does that happen?

Consequences are consequences. Responsibility and obligation fall on both.

 

[Guest]

First of all, I didn't find your comment to be polite, I found it to be offensive. I'm not easily offended, but your comment really was to me. Maybe I misinterpreted it. I hope so.

So I don't drink, and most people here know that, so we can throw that out right now. I am however very vulnerable, and easily manipulated. You don't think a woman would take advantage of a guy like me? They would and they have. My last girlfriend before Magica ended our relationship by admitting to me that she was only using me for sex. What if she had decided to have sex with me then ditch me while I slept during the night?

We don't know what happened. All they said in the article was that it was a one-night-stand. I'm not saying you're wrong outright. The situation you described makes sense to me. However, that's just one situation out of many possibilities.

I don't drink.
I have had more then my share of one night stands that I THOUGHT were the start of something.
No one holds the market on how utterly alone we can all be.

 

[amicus]

Well, crap, youse guys anyway...

Talking about barroom sluts, prostitutes, dogs fucking in the streets, even low class housemaids in old England had a better sense of morals that you people exhibit.

Two people of childbearing age, and I don't even care what that age is, young or old, in whatever circumstances, even those of non consent, create a child and you labor over the rights and responsibilities of all three parties, the father, the mother and the child and you don't have a clue as to the ethics and morals involved, you just wanna give your silly assed personal opinion.

I thought this was a forum of ideas and thoughts not pussified outcryings of emotion and pity.

Amicus...

 

[Trombonus]

One night stand....
She doesn't have a clue if he is a decent guy or not... she doesn't know anything about him except that she slept with him that one night. So should she risk her life and the lifeof her child to find this man and tell him?

Like I said I understand the logic, but here's another situation for you.

What if the guy was a decent guy, but he was finishing up school and getting ready to start a career. Maybe she didn't want him to know about it because she knew that he'd give up his education and career in order to raise the child.

Just because they had a one night stand doesn't mean they didn't know each other. Maybe they were good friends, got really drunk at a party and slept together. She would have known that he was a good guy and would have been a good father, but maybe she had her own reasons for keeping it a secret.

As far as this article is concerned, you're probably right, but we don't know anything about the people involved or the situation other than it stated that her parents wouldn't be suitable caregivers. Do I think in her situation that she made the right call? Yeah I do. She took the safest choice, which in this case is a good decision. I just don't think we should make assumptions when we don't know all the facts.

Again, if it were me in that guy's shoes and I found out later on down the line I'd be devastated.

 

[slyc_willie]

Well, crap, youse guys anyway...

Talking about barroom sluts, prostitutes, dogs fucking in the streets, even low class housemaids in old England had a better sense of morals that you people exhibit.

Two people of childbearing age, and I don't even care what that age is, young or old, in whatever circumstances, even those of non consent, create a child and you labor over the rights and responsibilities of all three parties, the father, the mother and the child and you don't have a clue as to the ethics and morals involved, you just wanna give your silly assed personal opinion.

I thought this was a forum of ideas and thoughts not pussified outcryings of emotion and pity.

Amicus...

Stir the pot . . .

Stir the pot . . . .

ETA: Sorry, not much into beating my he-man chest at the moment.

 

[Trombonus]

Stir the pot . . .

Stir the pot . . . .

The ignore feature is a wonderful thing.

 

[slyc_willie]

The ignore feature is a wonderful thing.

Nah. Believe it or not, I like Ami.

No, seriously.

 

[Trombonus]

Nah. Believe it or not, I like Ami.

No, seriously.

Wha?

 

[slyc_willie]

Wha?

Hey, shocking as it may be, but amicus and I have never turned things personal, far as I know. We don't always agree, but we have discussions. I like that.

 

[Trombonus]

Hey, shocking as it may be, but amicus and I have never turned things personal, far as I know. We don't always agree, but we have discussions. I like that.

I can understand that.

I just like to keep my happy little world as happy as I can. Which is why I never join in on threads like these. Wait a minute...why did I come in here anyway?

 

[slyc_willie]

I can understand that.

I just like to keep my happy little world as happy as I can. Which is why I never join in on threads like these. Wait a minute...why did I come in here anyway?

Because you had an opinion, and wanted to discuss it as a reasonable and responsible adult.

You know, sometimes that Happy Little World needs a jolt now and then.

 

[Trombonus]

Because you had an opinion, and wanted to discuss it as a reasonable and responsible adult.

You know, sometimes that Happy Little World needs a jolt now and then.

An adult? ME!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, I've stated my opinion and made my case so I'm gonna leave it at that. Besides, I hate confrontation and I've already got two arguments going on in this house as it is. Think it's time to spend some quality time with my beloved Transformers.

 

[slyc_willie]

An adult? ME!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, I've stated my opinion and made my case so I'm gonna leave it at that. Besides, I hate confrontation and I've already got two arguments going on in this house as it is. Think it's time to spend some quality time with my beloved Transformers.

Lol, go ahead, buddy.

I'll wait around awhile and see if Ami wants to talk . . . .

 

[3113]

Again, if it were me in that guy's shoes and I found out later on down the line I'd be devastated.

But there is the fact that I really doubt you'd be in that guy's shoes. Granted, anyone can make a mistake, especially if there's enough alcohol involved, but responsible guys who are looking forward to a committed relationship with kids and such, are often guys who either don't head off for a one-night big of whoopie, and/or who make sure they put the condom on.

Which is not to say that I agree with this decision. It's all very sticky because it does give the woman all the power--the power to sick the dad with paternity or give the kid up for adoption without seeing if dad wants it, etc., etc., etc. I don't trust all women to have the best judgement in making such decisions and, never minding dad for the moment, the child is the one who could really lose out.

 

[slyc_willie]

But there is the fact that I really doubt you'd be in that guy's shoes. Granted, anyone can make a mistake, especially if there's enough alcohol involved, but responsible guys who are looking forward to a committed relationship with kids and such, are often guys who either don't head off for a one-night big of whoopie, and/or who make sure they put the condom on.

Which is not to say that I agree with this decision. It's all very sticky because it does give the woman all the power--the power to sick the dad with paternity or give the kid up for adoption without seeing if dad wants it, etc., etc., etc. I don't trust all women to have the best judgement in making such decisions and, never minding dad for the moment, the child is the one who could really lose out.

Well, in the article, the woman only wanted to give up the child, although there seems to be a question about wether she was able to do so. The impression I got was that she still had custody of the newborn after 19 weeks.

So if the intent was to bear the child and give it up, then a paternity suit would be compromised. It would no longer be the woman's child, at least not legally (although that remains an issue of contention). But if she wanted to keep the child and never let the father know . . . that's where it gets iffy.

As I said, she wants to keep mum, and raise the tyke on her own, that's her choice. But if daddy finds out, through friends or family or medical records, he should be entitled to be as much a part of the child's life as the mother.

 

[sr71plt]

Either this will be tossed on appeal or it opens the whole issue to impregnators not being held responsible for child support--which opens a whole teeming can of worms for the woman's side to contemplate.

You can't have it both ways in the end, even if you happen on a myopic judge in the lower courts.

As of now, the woman (usually--but not always; woman have been forced to take care of themselves if they don't abort in the first trimester by petitioning fathers prior to the birth) has legal backing for complete say before she gives birth (but that might very well be tossed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future). But if she chooses to have the baby, the father's ("impregnator's") rights of access (including knowledge of the birth) kick in right along with his responsibilities of financial support. Lower courts might be myopic on this, but appeals courts will use more common sense (and I think posters here should be able to do so too).

So, if you are strongly in favor of the mother holding all the decision cards, don't send her around for child support if she chooses to have the baby and cut the impregnator out of the deal. You see reports of cases to the contrary--but they are rarely reported when the appeals process nixes them.

It's pushing the envelope to expect an impregnator to provide child support if the mother chooses to have the baby and he chooses to abort it (although I think is right that he should have to do so--he should keep it in his pants or should keep it well capped if he doesn't want to take that risk) and the U.S. Supreme Court is on the cusp of jerking that rug from underneath the woman.

 

[slyc_willie]

It's pushing the envelope to expect an impregnator to provide child support if the mother chooses to have the baby and he chooses to abort it (although I think is right that he should have to do so--he should keep it in his pants or should keep it well capped if he doesn't want to take that risk) and the U.S. Supreme Court is on the cusp of jerking that rug from underneath the woman.

Not quite sure what you meant by this, sr71.

Are you saying the 'impregnator' has the right to insist on abortion? Or that his responsibility toward the outcome of the child's birth ends with the decision to either abstain or wear a condom?

 

[3113]

Are you saying the 'impregnator' has the right to insist on abortion? Or that his responsibility toward the outcome of the child's birth ends with the decision to either abstain or wear a condom?

I think he means that it's already problematic to insist that daddy provide for the kid when he didn't want it and only mommy did.

In other words, once you insist that dad pay for a kid whether he wants it or not, giving mom total rights to have it and *make* him pay for it, then you put the argument that dad hasn't any rights to the kid on thin ice. This includes rights to know of the kid's existence, mom's wanting to give him up for adoption, etc.

Denying daddies these rights could put mommies in jeopardy of losing the right to get child support for babies they wanted but the father didn't.

 

[slyc_willie]

I think he means that it's already problematic to insist that daddy provide for the kid when he didn't want it and only mommy did.

In other words, once you insist that dad pay for a kid whether he wants it or not, giving mom total rights to have it and *make* him pay for it, then you put the argument that dad hasn't any rights to the kid on thin ice. This includes rights to know of the kid's existence, mom's wanting to give him up for adoption, etc.

Denying daddies these rights could put mommies in jeopardy of losing the right to get child support for babies they wanted but the father didn't.

I don't buy the "I think he means that it's already problematic to insist that daddy provide for the kid when he didn't want it and only mommy did," part.

If he really didn't want a kid, he should have used a condom. Not entirely effective, of course, but the next best thing to abstinence.

And don't tell me that a guy drunk off his gourd can't think enough to protect himself; I work with a lot of guys who sleep around, often when blitzed, and unless they are absolutely blotto to the wind, they have enough presence of mind to keep themselves from a potential paternity suit by putting on a glove. And if they're too drunk for that, they probably couldn't get it up anyway.

 

[sr71plt]

Not quite sure what you meant by this, sr71.

Are you saying the 'impregnator' has the right to insist on abortion? Or that his responsibility toward the outcome of the child's birth ends with the decision to either abstain or wear a condom?

We're talking law here and trending in court decisions (I edit a whole line of "which direction is the U.S. Supreme Court headed" legal theory books)--not my personal view of what is just, so I hope the pitchforks aren't being sharpened for the messenger.

No, as legal interpretations (of U.S. law) now stand, the impregnator doesn't have the right to insist on abortion (in some countries he does--and he has full legal rights to the child there if it's born, as well--which is why American women who have married Middle Eastern men--or men with citizenship in institutionally Catholic countries--shouldn't even think of visiting the father's country with their kids in tow).

But also now, cases are going both ways if a woman chooses to have a baby without the impregnator's permission and then sues the impregnator for child support. The higher that's been taken in the court system, the less likely the woman will get child support from the impregnator if she keeps the baby secret from him or hasn't obtained his written permission to full term (or gathered some proof that he was willing for the pregnancy to go full term). Under Roe/Wade, women have actually been chomping on both sides of the turkey on this--denying the impregnator any say but demanding he carry full support responsibility (and I think any objective person can see that this is a little out of whack in the common sense department).

The legal trend is toward dumping Roe/Wade and balancing the decision/responsibility scales, so all of the "it's my body--to be supported by your money" opinion expressers here need to do a little worrying about how long their views are going to be supported in the legal system. The trend ain't going their way. It would take a very liberal president and some dead Supreme Court justices to reverse the trend.

 

[sr71plt]

I think he means that it's already problematic to insist that daddy provide for the kid when he didn't want it and only mommy did.

In other words, once you insist that dad pay for a kid whether he wants it or not, giving mom total rights to have it and *make* him pay for it, then you put the argument that dad hasn't any rights to the kid on thin ice. This includes rights to know of the kid's existence, mom's wanting to give him up for adoption, etc.

Denying daddies these rights could put mommies in jeopardy of losing the right to get child support for babies they wanted but the father didn't.

Bingo. The higher you go in the appeals court system, the more judges you will find who will accept this argument--and the trend in judge appointments is solidifying this.

And everyone who is indignant that this is the case isn't going to be consulted in a judge's decision.

If you want to change it, you've got to change what judges are being appointed to the higher level courts--yammering on an Internet chat board ain't gonna do it.

 

[3113]

And don't tell me that a guy drunk off his gourd can't think enough to protect himself; I work with a lot of guys who sleep around, often when blitzed, and unless they are absolutely blotto to the wind, they have enough presence of mind to keep themselves from a potential paternity suit by putting on a glove. And if they're too drunk for that, they probably couldn't get it up anyway.

Hey, I'm in agreement, BUT...I think sr71 is arguing that this requirement begins to sound less reasonable if you give the woman total power over what rights and responsibilities daddy is going to have or not have. That giving the decision over entirely to mommy on this score does not create any objective "law" as to the rights and responsibilities of the father. It kinda says, "if you get a woman preggers, and she decides to have the baby, than your status as a dad is entirely up to her as well."

 

[slyc_willie]

We're talking law here and trending in court decisions (I edit a whole line of "which direction is the U.S. Supreme Court headed" legal theory books)--not my personal view of what is just, so I hope the pitchforks aren't being sharpened for the messenger.

No, as legal interpretations (of U.S. law) now stand, the impregnator doesn't have the right to insist on abortion (in some countries he does--and he has full legal rights to the child there if it's born, as well--which is why American women who have married Middle Eastern men--or men with citizenship in institutionally Catholic countries--shouldn't even think of visiting the father's country with their kids in tow).

But also now, cases are going both ways if a woman chooses to have a baby without the impregnator's permission and then sues the impregnator for child support. The higher that's been taken in the court system, the less likely the woman will get child support from the impregnator if she keeps the baby secret from him or hasn't obtained his written permission to full term (or gathered some proof that he was willing for the pregnancy to go full term). Under Row/Wade, women have actually been chomping on both sides of the turkey on this--denying the impregnator any say but demanding he carry full support responsibility (and I think any objective person can see that this is a little out of whack in the common sense department).

The legal trend is toward dumping Row/Wade and balancing the decision/responsibility scales, so all of the "it's my body--to be supported by your money" opinion expressers here need to do a little worrying about how long their views are going to be supported in the legal system. The trend ain't going their way. It would take a very liberal president and some dead Supreme Court justices to reverse the trend.

Laws are always tricky things, and no, I'm not sharpening any pitchforks. Can't speak for some who may follow, however.

So the current trend on the books is that, if I meet a girl at a club, and have unprotected sex that results in conception, I am liable immediately for child support if she has the baby. If I insist she has an abortion, however, I have no ground, correct? It is her body, her decision.

However, she decides to have the baby, but never tells me that she is pregnant, and even goes so far as to hide her pregnancy and resulting delivery from me, her family and friends. The law may or may not protect her right to exclude me of this knowledge. That's still up in the air.

But, say, a year later, and the kid is a few months old, and the woman I spent a night with sends me paperwork through a lwayer saying I owe her child support. There would be ground, then, to challenge that suit, on the grounds that I never knew of the pregnancy?

I dunno. That seems pretty iffy. In order to protect myself, I might have to check back with my one-time lover to see if she was pregnant, then document that she told me she was not, when in fact she was . . . .

Such cases could easily degenerate into a batch of 'he said, she said.'

 

[slyc_willie]

Hey, I'm in agreement, BUT...I think sr71 is arguing that this requirement begins to sound less reasonable if you give the woman total power over what rights and responsibilities daddy is going to have or not have. That giving the decision over entirely to mommy on this score does not create any objective "law" as to the rights and responsibilities of the father. It kinda says, "if you get a woman preggers, and she decides to have the baby, than your status as a dad is entirely up to her as well."

I wouldn't argue that at all.

The deciding moment comes when she decides to hide her pregnancy from the father. If that is is discovered, then the father would get all the rights he is owed. It would amount to something along the order of fraud on the woman's part, in my opinion.

 

[sr71plt]

Laws are always tricky things, and no, I'm not sharpening any pitchforks. Can't speak for some who may follow, however.

So the current trend on the books is that, if I meet a girl at a club, and have unprotected sex that results in conception, I am liable immediately for child support if she has the baby. If I insist she has an abortion, however, I have no ground, correct? It is her body, her decision.

However, she decides to have the baby, but never tells me that she is pregnant, and even goes so far as to hide her pregnancy and resulting delivery from me, her family and friends. The law may or may not protect her right to exclude me of this knowledge. That's still up in the air.

But, say, a year later, and the kid is a few months old, and the woman I spent a night with sends me paperwork through a lwayer saying I owe her child support. There would be ground, then, to challenge that suit, on the grounds that I never knew of the pregnancy?

I dunno. That seems pretty iffy. In order to protect myself, I might have to check back with my one-time lover to see if she was pregnant, then document that she told me she was not, when in fact she was . . . .

Such cases could easily degenerate into a batch of 'he said, she said.'

"He said, she said." Exactly. Roe/Wade and the way societal perspectives were going for a while--and were being reflected in judge appointments gave more weight to the "she said" than to the "he said." Even earlier then the type of issue brought up here this was reflected in who paid support (and moved out of the house) no matter who was more or all at fault in the breakup of a marriage (the mother got the house and the kids if she wanted them unless she was a criminal or a certified crazy and the father paid the bills). The trend now is moving back toward equal credence to "he said" and you are seeing a whole lot more fathers taking the kids and mothers footing the bill. And you are seeing a whole lot more "shrug; we'll just have to split it down the middle" and/or "if you can't produce his permission slip to do what you want in relationship to this pregnancy/child, we won't stick him with responsibility for what you decided" in court decisions.

This isn't a "we can decide for ourselves" issue. This is controlled by court decisions--and the courts are trending in this direction. (And, again, there was a time when "she" had no say at all--and there are countries and legal systems where this is still the case).

(Relatively) young, more conservative, traditional-view judges are being appointed to the courts. So a reversal of the trend won't happen naturally and it won't happen now in the short term--and it will require shoe leather, not "oh woe is me" or "I don't think that's right" opinion writing.