Parental Rights, Child Rights and Reproductive Rights

[pharphis]

Just this part: can mothers? Do all women consent to a pregnancy? What if the deception is on the part of the father? "Don't worry - I've had a vasectomy." or even more common "I'll love you forever. We will always be together and I will always take care of you." If so can the mother "opt out" of supporting the child and just hand it to the father at birth? Or insist instead that the father do all the work and pay all the costs of rearing the child until 18?

I also am uncertain by what you mean by "deception or not." I suspect that most unwanted pregnancies are accidents rather than deceptions. Are you suggesting that a father should also be able to just declare no responsibility for an accident? Would it also apply to the mother? Would it apply in a marriage too? "I didn't want the child so I'm just walking. Especially now that they are 14 and kind of annoying." Sorry, I am not trying to create a straw man here: I just want to know more about what you are actually proposing.

Separately, although your OP focuses on legal responsibility, I am afraid that it paints a pretty dismal overall picture of males and their sense of moral responsibility. "Oops, I've made a kid but I didn't waaannnt toooo. Thank god I won't have to visit or take care of it, but child support is really going to be a drag on my life style. Wouldn't it be great if we change the law so that I can just announce that I didn't want it and then not even have a financial responsibility? Then I can just completely forget this new person even exists! It's the mom's problem after all, right?"

From my perspective as a dad: if one creates a child, in any context, there deep, unavoidable moral responsibilities that come with it and can't be simply whined out of or undone by law. It isn't all, or even mostly about the dad and what they want- it has to be primarily about this vulnerable new person and what they need. Who will take care of them, who will love them, who will provide support, both emotional and financial, so they have a good childhood and will be ready for adult life. Wanted or not, even accidental or a deception, here is a new human being that the father helped create and who will need help. Both the mother and father are morally responsible for ensuring these needs of this human being are met by one means or another. "The mother tricked me!" Nasty, but the kid didn't and he/she is not going away.

A couple of additional points. I am pro-choice, an embryo is not a child, and I hope that a woman's option of an abortion will remain available. Nonetheless I cannot image a false "symmetry" where the father can force a pregnant woman against her wishes to have an abortion or else forego child support. Similarly it may seem conceptually (pun intended) "fair" but I cannot imagine a "symmetry" where the father can insist the mom give up the baby for adoption against her wishes or else forego child support. Like it or not the biology of reproduction is inherently asymmetrical.

If one choses to have genital/genital heterosexual sex one must be aware of the possibility of making a baby. And if that happens it's the needs of the baby that then come first whatever the circumstances of the conception.

Certainly both groups can be deceptive but it is much easier for women to be deceptive (and more likely) and women have more options both pre- and post-birth. Vasectomies and tube-tying are uncommon (afaik) but the birth control pill is quite ordinary and whether it's being used properly is impossible to know for a male partner.

Both groups could put holes in condoms, I suppose, though I would guess that women do that more often than men as well (I think lying about birth control is probably 100x more common, though).


I BELIEVE that if the father is known and the mother doesn't want the baby, that the father is approached first instead of adoptive services. In such a scenario I presume the mother would be held responsible for child support as a result but I'm not certain. As much as child support is enforced on women, anyway.

Now to answer the highlighted directly:
Yes, via adoption or safe haven abandonment mothers can revoke their own responsibility post-birth.

-----

Ok, as for the "best interests of the child"

I absolutely agree that children's best interests should be taken into account, and that would be 2 parents, ideally mother and father (see "fatherlessness" as directly correlated with a host of issues). I know that the cases I'm making are in some ways against this in favor of freedom. In the legal realm of custody, I would argue more in the other favor (of the child's interests).

That said, I would predict there would be less unwanted children if women knew they couldn't rope in a man for support for 18 years regardless of his consent. Even if a man is raped he can (and has been before) held liable for child support. Even if that man was underage (statutory rape) for conception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

I guess in the framing of this topic (and this thread) I set the ideas of child custody and reproductive freedom as separate entities, and I would in fact argue both sides even though they come in some conflict. That said, I think men (and children) have it worse than they should in both instances, and that it could be remedied by considering consent of the father as important.

People seem to laugh of "oh it's your responsibility" but 18 years of child support isn't trivial, especially if you were mislead, lied to or one of the more absurd instances I referred to (sperm jacking). Again, women aren't held to this standard


edit:
Oh, and there was some other things I'd like to expand on...

I think a reasonable system would allow for a man to opt out within some time-frame of finding out about the pregnancy/birth (a man might not find out until afterwards...). I definitely don't think when you're a couple of years in that you should be able to, but maybe special exceptions should arise for cases where someone finds out a child is not their own. Again, ideally this would just be solved after birth via a paternity test. I think this should be standard testing for the sake of the alleged father, the actual father, and the child themselves.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I am going to set aside birth control sabotage and spermjacking for the sake of simplicity. Bad faith actors certainly complicate things.

I am curious about the cultural change about how abortion is viewed.

Once abortion was considered a deeply shameful, immoral act. Condemned by society at large and often illegal, usually sought out in secret. Obviously, no moral argument could be made that a woman is free to "choose" such an immoral option, so really conception is the point of no return, making the man equally liable for the child.

But that has been changing. Maybe less so in the US, where abortion access and stigma is very regional. But certainly there are countries that are shedding the more conservative view of abortion. It is not inconceivable that at some point in the future, abortion is seen as a purely pragmatic, not moral or social, decision.

In such an ideal world, would not having an abortion be considered "choosing" to have a child? Would be still be slaves to biology and happenstance?

Hypothetical: Abortion and medical care is provided free and is readily available by the state. No moral or social baggage is attached to women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Say a woman becomes pregnant, despite precautions taken by both the father and mother. The father is unambiguously clear right away that he does not wish to have a child. The woman did not want to have a child and only became pregnant by accident. If there are no compelling reasons why she can't choose to terminate, at what point should the woman be solely responsible for the child should she carry it to term?

This is purely a hypothetical, but it makes me curious.

 

[qayak]

That said, I would predict there would be less unwanted children if women knew they couldn't rope in a man for support for 18 years regardless of his consent.

How do you figure? You admit that the financial threat of 18 years support hasn't stopped men from making bad choices why do you think it will stop women?

In my view, the "I got roped into paying for a kid" scenario is far outweighed by the "I was too stupid to take precautions" scenario and pretty much a non-issue.

 

[pharphis]

How do you figure? You admit that the financial threat of 18 years support hasn't stopped men from making bad choices why do you think it will stop women?

In my view, the "I got roped into paying for a kid" scenario is far outweighed by the "I was too stupid to take precautions" scenario and pretty much a non-issue.

I don't know how common either scenario is, but at present women know that men have no choice in the matter once pregnancy occurs. If men were to have a choice in the matter, and women made aware, presumably they would be less likely to put men in these situations.

Certainly it stops SOME men from making bad decisions, since there are men who aren't open about having vasectomies and things like that. Still, at present the worst a man can do is lead a woman on and/or change his mind about their future once she's pregnant, and then he's still held liable for child support even if he doesn't want to be a part of the child's life (and this leading on would be immoral, imo). So it's not a winning game, really.

People of both sexes lose out due to misplacing trust at times, but at present it's heavily slanted in one direction.

 

[pharphis]

I am going to set aside birth control sabotage and spermjacking for the sake of simplicity. Bad faith actors certainly complicate things.

I am curious about the cultural change about how abortion is viewed.

Once abortion was considered a deeply shameful, immoral act. Condemned by society at large and often illegal, usually sought out in secret. Obviously, no moral argument could be made that a woman is free to "choose" such an immoral option, so really conception is the point of no return, making the man equally liable for the child.

But that has been changing. Maybe less so in the US, where abortion access and stigma is very regional. But certainly there are countries that are shedding the more conservative view of abortion. It is not inconceivable that at some point in the future, abortion is seen as a purely pragmatic, not moral or social, decision.

In such an ideal world, would not having an abortion be considered "choosing" to have a child? Would be still be slaves to biology and happenstance?

Hypothetical: Abortion and medical care is provided free and is readily available by the state. No moral or social baggage is attached to women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Say a woman becomes pregnant, despite precautions taken by both the father and mother. The father is unambiguously clear right away that he does not wish to have a child. The woman did not want to have a child and only became pregnant by accident. If there are no compelling reasons why she can't choose to terminate, at what point should the woman be solely responsible for the child should she carry it to term?

This is purely a hypothetical, but it makes me curious.

I would say as soon as he makes his intentions clear, though your hypothetical is a much cleaner scenario than most of the ideas in this thread. I do wonder if anyone else disagrees with me on this hypothetical

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I would say as soon as he makes his intentions clear, though your hypothetical is a much cleaner scenario than most of the ideas in this thread. I do wonder if anyone else disagrees with me on this hypothetical

My analogy for this scenario:

I'm hiking in the woods and am attacked by a dog showing clear signs of rabies. I return home. I know that I will develop rabies unless I seek out medical care, which is readily available for free. I decline to receive the rabies vaccine for personal reasons. I develop rabies and die.

In that scenario, I pretty much chose to die of rabies. Sure, the initial cause of the rabies was the accidental exposure by the rabid dog, but my deliberate inaction seems like the more significant factor. People might say the dog's owner was negligent in keeping up with the dog's rabies vaccination, as required by common sense. But the greatest responsibility for my negative outcome lies in my decision to do nothing to deal with my problem.

An unexpected pregnancy may by the result of carelessness or bad luck by all the parties, but actually continuing with the pregnancy until birth is a separate decision. Regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy, a woman that has a true choice to seek an abortion and does not is choosing to have a baby. It only seems reasonable to me that she bear the brunt of that responsibility.

Whether or not the state deems it wise to provide assistance to mothers and children who need it is another topic. I don't see why a father who has made his position clear early and unambiguously should bear the financial burden.

This, of course, does not apply in real life, at least in the US. This country is far from being a place where abortion is readily available with no social baggage for the woman.

 

[Giordano]

My analogy for this scenario:

I'm hiking in the woods and am attacked by a dog showing clear signs of rabies. I return home. I know that I will develop rabies unless I seek out medical care, which is readily available for free. I decline to receive the rabies vaccine for personal reasons. I develop rabies and die.

In that scenario, I pretty much chose to die of rabies. Sure, the initial cause of the rabies was the accidental exposure by the rabid dog, but my deliberate inaction seems like the more significant factor. People might say the dog's owner was negligent in keeping up with the dog's rabies vaccination, as required by common sense. But the greatest responsibility for my negative outcome lies in my decision to do nothing to deal with my problem.

An unexpected pregnancy may by the result of carelessness or bad luck by all the parties, but actually continuing with the pregnancy until birth is a separate decision. Regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy, a woman that has a true choice to seek an abortion and does not is choosing to have a baby. It only seems reasonable to me that she bear the brunt of that responsibility.
Whether or not the state deems it wise to provide assistance to mothers and children who need it is another topic. I don't see why a father who has made his position clear early and unambiguously should bear the financial burden.

This, of course, does not apply in real life, at least in the US. This country is far from being a place where abortion is readily available with no social baggage for the woman.

To amplify on your last paragraph: this baggage is not only in the USA and is not going to go away because a lot of it is based on religious beliefs deeply held by a substantial percent of the women facing the decision. I do not myself have any significant moral qualms about abortion and I am strongly opposed to those seeking to impose by law their own religious beliefs on others. Nonetheless even though I am an atheist I have to respect anyone who, due to their own moral or religious judgements, refuse to themselves have an abortion. Given this, can we really say that a father should be able to demand an abortion, and if not agree to, just walk away from all responsibility? Isn't this ironically again another person, the father, imposing their religious beliefs on abortion (if less stringent ones) on the mother by threatening a huge financial fine on the mother by withholding child support?

And it is the mother's body after all and abortion is far from a trivial medical procedure. One the father will not have to undergo.

Finally I come back to what I see has been lost from much of this discussion: the kid. I cannot envision many circumstances where the kid will not substantially benefit from financial support by the father and this is independent from the circumstances of the conception. Here is a new vulnerable new human being, accidental or not, like it or not, who has crucial needs that must be met. The idea of withholding financial support strikes me me as too often being a way of manipulating or even punishing the mom that virtually ignores these needs of and moral obligations to the child.

BTW: I also view the person not vaccinating their dog as bearing an equal responsibility to the person not seeking treatment after a bite. Also this is not the greatest analogy because unlike the dad I do not see how one's medical care team participated in the dog bite, let alone the fact that choosing to have a child is a bit different from choosing to have rabies.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

To amplify on your last paragraph: this baggage is not only in the USA and is not going to go away because a lot of it is based on religious beliefs deeply held by a substantial percent of the women facing the decision. I do not myself have any significant moral qualms about abortion and I am strongly opposed to those seeking to impose by law their own religious beliefs on others. Nonetheless even though I am an atheist I have to respect anyone who, due to their own moral or religious judgements, refuse to themselves have an abortion. Given this, can we really say that a father should be able to demand an abortion, and if not agree to, just walk away from all responsibility? Isn't this ironically again another person, the father, imposing their religious beliefs on abortion (if less stringent ones) on the mother by threatening a huge financial fine on the mother by withholding child support?

Yes, realistically the stigma is not going away any time soon. My hypothetical is very much removed from reality. While some women see abortion as a simple practical decision, I know many genuinely struggle with very serious moral concerns. Religious moralizing is not just limited to religious adherents either, it has permeated the general culture. It doesn't help that religious nutjobs line up outside clinics with gore pictures and call women baby killers. Any change on that front is certainly far in the future.

And it is the mother's body after all and abortion is far from a trivial medical procedure. One the father will not have to undergo.

An early term abortion is almost certainly less impact on a woman's body than giving birth. An early term abortion is no substitute for preventing pregnancy, but is probably the least impactful option for an unexpected pregnancy. But yes, the woman in unique in having to bear 100% of the physical burdens of pregnancy.

Finally I come back to what I see has been lost from much of this discussion: the kid. I cannot envision many circumstances where the kid will not substantially benefit from financial support by the father and this is independent from the circumstances of the conception. Here is a new vulnerable new human being, accidental or not, like it or not, who has crucial needs that must be met. The idea of withholding financial support strikes me me as too often being a way of manipulating or even punishing the mom that virtually ignores these needs of and moral obligations to the child.

The child should be supported, regardless. Ideally the state would provide a variety of social assistance for needy mothers and children. Often times now the state will provide aid and then pursue the deadbeat fathers to recover the costs. I could hypothetically see fathers not being responsible in very specific circumstances much in the same way that sperm donors are not responsible for their children. The children and mothers can certainly still receive aid, but the state won't go hunting down the bio-dads to recover the funds.

BTW: I also view the person not vaccinating their dog as bearing an equal responsibility to the person not seeking treatment after a bite. Also not the greatest greatest analogy because I do not see how one's medical care team participated in the dog bite, let alone the fact that choosing to have a child is a bit different from choosing to have rabies.

I see the dog owner as being responsible generally for creating a public hazard, but the death is mostly caused by me not taking reasonable steps to mitigate my damages.

My rabies analogy was mostly about unplanned pregnancy. People have sex fully intending not to have children, but unexpected pregnancies still occur, even when due caution is taken. My point is that, while pregnancy may occur because of misfortune of the mother and father, modern medicine (abortion) makes it largely reversible. Sure, the procedure is not risk or discomfort free, but it is nothing compared birthing and raising a child.

 

[Darat]

Not sure why any of this his/her rights etc. comes into it once a child is born, the child is the one with the rights, not the mother, not the father, start from that premise and the "problems" disappear.

And acts have consequences, if you choose to have sex that could result in a pregnancy no matter how low the probability then you have to accept that there is a chance that a child will be born and that child will have rights.

If you don't want a child don't have sex that can result in a child, no one has to have such sex.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If you don't want a child don't have sex that can result in a child, no one has to have such sex.

Where does abortion figure into this? The ability of women to control their reproductive systems, both by birth control and abortion, is a key triumph of feminism.

 

[Darat]

...snip..The child should be supported, regardless. Ideally the state would provide a variety of social assistance for needy mothers and children. Often times now the state will provide aid and then pursue the deadbeat fathers to recover the costs..snip..

Sorry to be seeming to single you out but its just that your wording concisely illustrates something I find quite strange, why is a woman not financially supporting their child but relying on money from the father not also known as a "deadbeat mother"?

 

[Darat]

Where does abortion figure into this? The ability of women to control their reproductive systems, both by birth control and abortion, is a key triumph of feminism.

It doesn't, it's really a tautology as until there is a child there is no child to have rights.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sorry to be seeming to single you out but its just that your wording concisely illustrates something I find quite strange, why is a woman not financially supporting their child but relying on money from the father not also known as a "deadbeat mother"?

If the mother is providing support for the child, then they aren't deadbeat. The mother may be heavily reliant on either the state's or the father's money, but if they are actually providing the day to day childcare, they are supporting the child. I would consider a parent a deadbeat if they neither provide actual child rearing or financial assistance to the person doing the child rearing.

Mothers can certainly be deadbeats.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It doesn't, it's really a tautology as until there is a child there is no child to have rights.

That's my whole point. The whole "you had sex, now be responsible" presumes a world where conception is the moment of no return. Abortion has really changed that. A woman is no longer a slave to her biology.

 

[Cain]

2) a choice to "opt out" of responsibility (child support) for a child they don't consent to wanting/creating (whether sex was consensual or not, deception was involved or not)

If abortion were illegal, it would presumably be permissible to force the biological father to pay child support. Funny how that works. (Since the importance of these sentences will get lost, I'll reproduce them in a moment.)

It misses the point about why the father should pay: Not out of a sense of fairness to the woman, but out of an obligation to the child. He bears responsibility.

But what about the mother's ability to opt-out of pregnancy altogether? That has nothing to do with anything, and too many of you are getting hung up on it. I'll offer to illustrate with a vaguely similar example.

The Economist offered potential subscribers two options:
A) Print and online access for $125/year.
B) Online only for $56/year.

Between the two, the publication would prefer option A because it's more profitable, but, as it happened, most leaned toward option B -- Online only. They added a third option:
C) Print Only for $125/year.

When you introduce this new alternative, people suddenly gravitate toward option A. I believe the phenomenon is called "The Dominated Alternative." A and B are asymmetrical, but A is clearly, objectively superior to C, which speaks to consumers: "With A, I'm getting a deal" Logically, C should make no difference.

If abortion were illegal, it would presumably be permissible to force the biological father to pay child support. Funny how that works.

A woman's bodily autonomy does absolve fathers of their financial obligation.

Tony's arguments about "personal responsibility" were amusing. In some cases, it's perfectly OK to mitigate or avoid the consequences of our actions. Suppose, in a moment of anger, I leave a mean-spirited letter for my girlfriend to find. Later I regret how this will hurt her, so I race home to retrieve it. Do I need to apologize for the nasty things she never read? No. If I did not retrieve the letter in time, then I might bear some responsibility to apologize. The pro-life argument about "taking personal responsibility" is not central to their case; it's contingent upon the idea that abortion harms an innocent/feeling/ensouled/human being.

It's kind of like the superficial "hypocrisy" where "my-body-my-right" means a woman is allowed to terminate a pregnancy but she should not be allowed to take fetus-damaging drugs while carrying a pregnancy to term. There's nothing especially immoral (per se) with doing drugs while pregnant with a fetus one soon plans to terminate.

It sucks that females alone are tasked with bearing children. If we develop artificial wombs, then the sexes could have identical rights and responsibilities regarding potential offspring (though the donation process would still be more invasive and troubling for females). Until then...

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not sure why any of this his/her rights etc. comes into it once a child is born, the child is the one with the rights, not the mother, not the father, start from that premise and the "problems" disappear.

Please elaborate, because I don't see how this could possibly be accurate.

And acts have consequences, if you choose to have sex that could result in a pregnancy no matter how low the probability then you have to accept that there is a chance that a child will be born and that child will have rights.

If you don't want a child don't have sex that can result in a child, no one has to have such sex.

I think this is a dodge. You are omitting the social and legal aspects, which is what people are discussing here. These exact same arguments are made by anti-abortion advocates to justify abortion bans. The consequences being debated are those imposed by the State and society, which, as evidenced by the wide variety of ways that societies have dealt with these issues, are not universal or based on self-evident "natural law".

 

[Fudbucker]

Not sure why any of this his/her rights etc. comes into it once a child is born, the child is the one with the rights, not the mother, not the father, start from that premise and the "problems" disappear.

This!

Let's take an "unfair" scenario: two people have causal sex with no plan to have a kid. The condom breaks, the sex stops, but the "damage" is done. And the woman changes her mind and now is adamant about raising the child.

The guy is going to be on the hook for child support and deservedly so, because once the kid is born, it's not about the parents anymore, it's about what's best for the kid, and what's best for the kid is that fathers take financial responsibility for the kids they help create. It can be as unfair as ****, but it doesn't matter because the alternative (letting fathers off the hook with their responsibilities) would be state-sanctioned child neglect.

And acts have consequences, if you choose to have sex that could result in a pregnancy no matter how low the probability then you have to accept that there is a chance that a child will be born and that child will have rights.

If you don't want a child don't have sex that can result in a child, no one has to have such sex.

Yes, and the woman faces unique perils too. Abortions are a medical procedure. Complications can happen. Emotions are involved. This is not something guys have to worry about.

 

[Fudbucker]

Where does abortion figure into this? The ability of women to control their reproductive systems, both by birth control and abortion, is a key triumph of feminism.

Abortion figures into it because it's not a child till it's born. Think of it like this: when people have sex, they start a process of creating a child. That process requires mutual cooperation at first, but once the guy is done, his influence over the process is also done. This has pros and cons. He doesn't have to carry the baby to term, get sidelined out of a job for months, or give birth.

The con is, the woman, by virtue of the process having taken residence inside her body, has more time to stop the process, and since the man cannot infringe on the bodily autonomy of the woman, he can only wait on pins and needles to see how that process plays out. I can see how this seems unfair. Once the process is done, and a child is born, then society steps in and decides men paying financial support is in the best interests of the child. I can't imagine a society deciding otherwise.

 

[qayak]

I don't know how common either scenario is, but at present women know that men have no choice in the matter once pregnancy occurs. If men were to have a choice in the matter, and women made aware, presumably they would be less likely to put men in these situations.

Re, hilighted portion: men are also fully aware and choose to make poor choices anyway.

Women don't put men in those situations, men put themselves in them and women are not responsible for looking out for men's poor choices.

But once again, this is not a gender thing, it is a 'what's best for the child' thing. Women have to pay support if they are the non-custodial parent just like men. Canada has a formula for child support payments and it is not based on gender, it is based on income.

In all this the only extra thing a woman gets is to decide is what happens with her own body from conception to birth and that is how it should be. Women are not deciding they don't want to pay child support when they opt for an abortion, they are deciding to terminate a pregnancy. For these men you speak of, it is all about the money and frankly they should have thought about that sooner.

As women were told for generations, "Just say no to sex!"

 

[Loss Leader]

People will say you just need to go to court and spend tens of thousands of dollars to argue for SHARED custody, and that men don't fight hard enough for it and that they're deadbeats... but lawyers know that it's a costly, losing battle, and that mothers can be encouraged to use every tool at their disposal (claims of abuse, absence, etc.) in order to guarantee primary or sole custody.

No, all lawyers don't know this. In fact, any matrimonial attorney with more than two weeks experience knows the opposite, at least in the US.

As a matrimonial attorney for 17 years in New York, I can say that the current trend is towards joint custody. Unless there's a real reason one parent can't be trusted, or communication between the two is so bad they can't even communicate via e-mail, the parents are going to share decision-making.

Now, the child is probably going to spend more living time with one parent than the other. It's very hard to divide time up completely equally and still be fair to the child. But true, shared custody is a thing that can and does happen.

Furthermore, any lawyer that advises a client to claim abuse without a reasonable belief that such occurred would be suborning perjury. It would be an almost automatic disbarment if not an actual crime. It's also just a plain stupid thing to do. Once your client loses credibility for making false claims of abuse, the court isn't going to be inclined to believe anything the person says. And that includes representations as to income and expenses - things that really matter for support.

If this is your view of US custody law, you're just wrong.

and then what happens when you can't afford child support? Well you can lose your driver's license (how is that supposed to help you support the kids?) and be thrown in jail (same question)

If you can't afford a child support order, you have many chances to provide evidence of your income to the court - both before a support order is made and even long, long after.

If you don't pay the support the court orders, then you can go to jail. It's a powerful tool. I remember one situation where the gentleman was crying and begging the court that he couldn't possibly pay his support arrears. This had to be our fifth time back in Family Court. The judge ordered him held and it was amazing: the moment that the metal from the handcuff touched his wrist, he suddenly found the money to pay. He gave over 100% of child support arrears with a bank check an hour later.

Nobody wants their child's other parent in jail for the reason you state - you can't get child support from a person with no job. But contempt is a powerful tool for compelling compliance.

By the way, you can also lose your hunting license.

I BELIEVE that if the father is known and the mother doesn't want the baby, that the father is approached first instead of adoptive services. In such a scenario I presume the mother would be held responsible for child support as a result but I'm not certain. As much as child support is enforced on women, anyway.

A child cannot be adopted away without the consent of both parents (unless they're found unfit). The natural father simply becomes the custodian of the child. The mother can agree to surrender custody and get a so-ordered stipulation signed by the court fairly easily.

All mothers are responsible for child support according to exactly the same formula as fathers. In New York, the statute doesn't even mention mothers or fathers. It just talks about the non-custodial parent.

And while judges have some discretion in child support, there's a mathematical formula that they can just plug numbers into that results in the presumptively correct support. It's 17% of income (less certain deductions) for one child, 25% for two ... capping out at 35% for five children or more. This is true in New York and a quickly growing number of states.

That said, I would predict there would be less unwanted children if women knew they couldn't rope in a man for support for 18 years regardless of his consent.

I think you are wildly overestimating the amount of decision-making that goes into any given sexual encounter.

Not sure why any of this his/her rights etc. comes into it once a child is born, the child is the one with the rights, not the mother, not the father, start from that premise and the "problems" disappear.

Absolutely correct. The child has a right to support from two parents. That is the concept that underlies all of child support law in the West.


ETA: I don't know what's going on in Japan. However, I do know that some male clients of mine had wildly unrealistic ideas about child custody. I had one client who just demanded that he get custody of the two young children. I asked him how many hours a week he works.

- 60.

What does his wife do?

- Nothing. She dropped out of school to support him while he went through med school.

So, when your wife is sitting alone in her apartment and you're at work for two hours before and six hours after school, who will be watching the kids?

- My mom.

How does this make sense?