Should a male be able to opt out of child support if he doesn't want the child?

[Yakamaru]

The topic of child support, pregnancy, pro/anti-abortion, etc, came up on a different forum. And with it came a rather interesting topic: Male reproductive rights.

Here's a scenario for you(it does happen, but will only be used as an example for now):

We have a couple who have been together for lets say, 2 years. They've done a lot of stuff together. Including doing the deed in bed, and often too. But always with her on the pill and him with a condom. They've made a verbal agreement to get a kid(or several) when they are both stable and agree to having it/them. One day she decides to not take the pill(whatever reason(s) are currently irrelevant, unless people are interested in taking on those issues as well) and punctures the condom secretly without his knowledge. They do the deed, and a week later, she admits to being pregnant.  At this moment the guy doesn't want the child.

Should the guy be able to opt out of child support if he doesn't want the child?

What are your thoughts on the topic?

[Vae]

If the father expresses his disinterest in having the child, and abortion and adoption are available to the mother, he absolutely should not have to pay child support, regardless of what sneaky bullshit does or doesn't go on behind the scenes.

If you have the option to terminate or give away the pregnancy, and you choose not to do so, it should become your responsibility.

[Catilda Lily]

He can sign away his rights to the child.

[WileyWarWeasel]

Nuke it from orbit.

 

It's the only way to be sure.

[Ginza]

Interesting topic, especially since he doesn't know what she's done.. 

I'd say yes, he should be able to opt out legally. Should he? No, I don't really think so, but that's on a moral basis. Since it is his child, and theoretically, shit happens. (as you do have to understand that even with precautionary measures, pregnancy can still occur. Plus, he's unaware that she tampered with the condom) Thus, he should know that if he really loves her and cares for what is his offspring, he wouldn't leave a kid fatherless and pack up.

 

If, he did know that she tampered with things, absolutely he should say fuck it, and leave.

[Red Lion]

Honestly women have plenty of alternatives when it comes to dealing with unwanted pregnancies, including giving up the child for adoption. Regardless of personal sentiments of morality I don't see any real reason why the father shouldn't have the same options. 

[Yakamaru]

Interesting opinions on the matter, and I thank you for taking your time to post in the thread, I appreciate it.

[Faust]

I think the key point here is that the conception is not just without the father's consent; he has been deliberately misled - sabotaged in fact. If one of them had said 'let's not use contraception and just risk it' then things would be very different. Things would even have been different if the pill had failed and the condom broken by chance. I would say that he does not have to pay child support, provided that he agrees not to sue for custody or visitation rights.

If women have a right to decide over what happens to their bodies, then men should have equal right to determine what happens to their sperm.

- F

[AshleyAshes]

On 3/11/2018 at 4:14 PM, Red Lion said:

Honestly women have plenty of alternatives when it comes to dealing with unwanted pregnancies, including giving up the child for adoption.

I just want to point something out here; You have to have both parent's consent to put a child up for adoption, assuming there is another parent's name on the birth certificate that is.  Because, seriously, why would anyone think it DOESN'T work that way?  And before someone goes 'Yes but the Father isn't always listed on the Birth Certificate!'  ...YUP, and that's also a HUGE hurdle to getting any kind of child support either, the other party would have to prove paterinity first as paterinity was not acknowledged by the father signing the birth certificate first.

This post is brought to you by; WHY DO I EVEN HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS!?  JESUS CHRIST!

[Vae]

3 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I just want to point something out here; You have to have both parent's consent to put a child up for adoption, assuming there is another parent's name on the birth certificate that is.  Because, seriously, why would anyone think it DOESN'T work that way?  And before someone goes 'Yes but the Father isn't always listed on the Birth Certificate!'  ...YUP, and that's also a HUGE hurdle to getting any kind of child support either, the other party would have to prove paterinity first as paterinity was not acknowledged by the father signing the birth certificate first.

This post is brought to you by; WHY DO I EVEN HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS!?  JESUS CHRIST!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

[Tsuujou]

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

This post is brought to you by; WHY DO I EVEN HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS!?  JESUS CHRIST!

You know..................................
You don't have to be condescending about every minor inconsistency you feel the need to correct. Especially when you yourself miss some details. You act like this is just a common topic where everyone should know the finest nuances like child custody laws are as black and white as the instructions to making a PB&J sandwich.

I'm sure Red Lion would be open to stand corrected without a dick down his throat. :l

[MalletFace]

My gut reaction is that he shouldn't have to, but my reaction after looking at law/court cases/stories/viewpoints/etc for a while is that it probably should depend.

First I looked into whether or not anybody can voluntarily opt out of child support by giving up parental rights. In North Carolina, my state in the U.S., neither parent can voluntarily give up all their parental rights to get out of child support - man or woman. Even more, nobody at all acting in the place of a parent can give up rights to stop supporting a child. Even if grandpa and granny are given custody of a child and granny decides to split with her bingo money, she still has to support the child. There are a select few ways to give up all parental rights, and I think all of them technically require the consent of all parties acting as parents or one parent or a representative of the state proving a person can not or should not have parental rights.

So I think child support, as it is in the U.S., has nothing to do with obligation due to biological relation or custody and everything to do with obligation based on the idea that all parties acting in the place of a parent are obligated to support the child until the child does not need support according to whatever government in the U.S.. That makes sense for me, and I can't come up with or find a better solution in as long as I have been looking. Other systems and ideas seem like they might hurt minorities, poor people, and other disadvantaged groups really hard.

That said, there's the issue of deciding who gets to or must act in the place of a parent.  The most common parents are the two common law assumes; a mother and a father that are the biological parents of the child. The only issue I can think of or find in this case is the issue of sexual assault or rape. As far as I can find, in most cases of rape, a woman gets to decide to keep the child or surrender the child and a man gets to be absolved of all obligations to a child. The problem is that

• sexual assault is underreported for many reasons, and men that are victims of statutory rape, for example, can sometimes have an obligation to a child if the person that assaulted them was never charged, and
• rape and sexual assault laws in the U.S. (and most places) suck, and cases of sex that really ought to be treated as rape or sexual assault are not.

If somebody removes or damages a condom during sex without the other person agreeing to it, I think that person is guilty of rape by deception. I think a person that is a victim of rape should not be forced to act as a parent if they do not want to.

If two people agree to and have sex without contraception and the result is a child, I believe they should act out an obligation to support the child as long as everybody agrees the obligation is to the child and they are both are capable of supporting the child. I think this obligation should end for one or both if one or both are unfit or incapable to meet the obligation or if both agree to give some other agreeing person or people the obligation.

So, it depends. I guess it would just be nice if sex came with paperwork.

On another note, abortion and obligation of support are two different issues legally. People conflate the two in courts to get attention. One is an issue of whether or not an individual can decide to end another's physical reliance on their body, and the other is an issue of what obligations a parent has to a child once it is born. A parent that does not carry a child has no obligation to support that child until it is born, I believe from what I've read and seen. Nobody does, technically - not even the person that carries the child.

On 3/10/2018 at 3:22 PM, Yakamaru said:

...a week later, she admits to being pregnant...

While she's probably right if she got a positive result on any number of tests, you might want to look into how pregnancy works and how soon a test can usually give a meaningful negative just in case you are in a "somebody might be pregnant" situation in the future.

20 hours ago, Faust said:

If women have a right to decide over what happens to their bodies, then men should have equal right to determine what happens to their sperm.

Would a more even comparison not be, "If women have a right to decide what happens to their eggs, then men should have equal right to determine what happens to their sperm."?

I'm not sure spermous autonomy is a thing, or that it should be. I don't want to get sued or charged with a crime for using the wrong public bathroom and standing in the wrong spot.

4 hours ago, Vae said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

As far as I can find, these laws technically still require everybody acting as a parent to agree, and either parent, in my state at least, can come back before a certain period and return the obligation to everybody that was acting as a parent beforehand.

I believe the "men not getting a say" in those laws mostly stem from men not realizing they have a kid, especially in cases of uncertain parentage, and then making a complaint after it is too late. I think that would be a discussion of "should the one with the sperm be told their sperm kickstarted a baby in all cases?"

[Red Lion]

5 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

I just want to point something out here; You have to have both parent's consent to put a child up for adoption, assuming there is another parent's name on the birth certificate that is.  Because, seriously, why would anyone think it DOESN'T work that way?  And before someone goes 'Yes but the Father isn't always listed on the Birth Certificate!'  ...YUP, and that's also a HUGE hurdle to getting any kind of child support either, the other party would have to prove paterinity first as paterinity was not acknowledged by the father signing the birth certificate first.

This post is brought to you by; WHY DO I EVEN HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS!?  JESUS CHRIST!

 

https://parkerherringlawgroup.com/adoption/adoption-without-fathers-consent-north-carolina/

If a father is uninvolved or not deemed "supportive" his consent is usually not needed.

 

Quote

In many states, the expectant mother is not required to advise a man of her pregnancy, but the some state laws do prohibit you from lying to the father of your baby about your pregnancy or the baby’s expected due date. This means that you must answer truthfully if the birth father asks you whether you are pregnant and when the baby is due, or you must ask your adoption professional to tell him the truth on your behalf.

He also doesn't necessarily even have to be aware of the pregnancy. A woman has to answer truthfully IF HE DIRECTLY ASKS, but if he's not present in the mother's life and not in contact with the mother then she usually won't be required to seek him out. 

https://www2.ncdhhs.gov/info/olm/manuals/dss/csm-50/man/CSs1302-01.htm

 

Quote

c. If the father fails to respond within the 15 days, the court shall enter an order that his consent is not required for the adoption. He is then not entitled to notice under N.C.G.S.§48-2-401(c) of an adoption petition filed within 3 months of the birth of the child. After that time the determination under this new section is no longer valid and he would be entitled to notice, need to give consent, deny paternity, etc.

d. If the father notifies the court within the 15 days that he believes his consent is required, a hearing shall be held no earlier than 60 days nor later than 70 days after the father received his notice.

e. The notice of that hearing must inform the father of the date, time and place of the hearing and inform him that before the date of the hearing, he must have taken steps under N.C.G.S.§48-3-601 to establish that his consent is necessary. These steps include marrying the mother, legitimating the child (after the child’s birth), acknowledging paternity of the child and supporting the child or mother and regularly visiting or communicating with the mother and/or child.

f. The court may take evidence as necessary during the hearing and enter an order determining whether the father’s consent is necessary. If the court determines his consent is not necessary; he is not entitled to notice of an adoption petition filed within 3 months of the child’s birth.

Here in NC a potential father sometimes has to PROVE that he is a capable and willing parent before he is given the right to prevent an adoption. Depending on the judge and the county that can be extremely difficult for an unwed father. He usually has to meet a certain financial and criminal standard (again depending on the judge and district) before his consent is deemed necessary. 

Yes, there is a lot of technical legal bullshit but there are also a lot of ways around getting a father's consent and they aren't as hard as people think. 


Or if you wanna skip all the legal hoops you can literally just dump the kid

http://safehaven.tv/states/northcarolina/

Heck you can drop it off with ANY RESPONSIBLE ADULT and that adult can take the child to the nearest hospital or police station.  

 

Quote

A distressed parent who is unable or unwilling to care for their infant can give up custody of their baby, no questions asked. They must simply bring the infant to a safe haven location and make sure they locate a person to give the child. As long as the child shows no signs of intentional abuse, no name or other information is required. The specific locations and maximum age of the child varies from state to state. You can find the details of for your location by using our Safehaven Finder. It's safe. It's anonymous. You do not need to tell anyone.

The crisis center where I started working is a safe haven. A woman can leave a newborn there, no questions asked. 

[Faust]

5 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

I'm not sure spermous autonomy is a thing, or that it should be. I don't want to get sued or charged with a crime for using the wrong public bathroom and standing in the wrong spot.

Ah, the 'George Michael' defence!

Obviously I mean with specific intent to impregnate a partner, not just spraying the stuff over anything you happen to take a fancy to. Public decency laws would still apply.

[AshleyAshes]

3 hours ago, Red Lion said:

https://parkerherringlawgroup.com/adoption/adoption-without-fathers-consent-north-carolina/

If a father is uninvolved or not deemed "supportive" his consent is usually not needed.

 

Quote

In general, if a man is married to a pregnant woman at the time of either conception or birth or between conception and birth, his name will be entered on the birth certificate as the child’s father — and his consent to the adoption will likely be needed.

Unlike a husband or legal father, however, an unwed biological father’s right to receive notice does not mean that his consent is required in order for the adoption to proceed. A man who fathers a child out of wedlock must take affirmative steps to show his commitment to establishing a parent-child relationship before the law recognizes his right to prevent an adoption by withholding his consent.

Did you even READ THIS before posting it?  I mean, seriously, did you, or did you only read the headline and go 'AH HA!  I'll use this for a counter point!'?  It literally underlines exactly what I said.  I was pretty clear about the name being on the birth certificate.  Very clear.

Everything you just quoted is for situations when the father's name is NOT on the birth certificate.  Which, AGAIN, would also present a very large legal hurdle to any kind of child support.

[AshleyAshes]

8 hours ago, Tsuujou said:

You act like this is just a common topic where everyone should know the finest nuances like child custody laws are as black and white as the instructions to making a PB&J sandwich.

Wrong.  It is for sure not nuanced and it should be as clear as making a PB&J sandwich.  You for sure would require the consent and involvement of both parents on the Birth Certificate to give up a child for adoption.  Anyone who would not understand this is missing the 'nuance' they are instead 'devoid of basic critical thinking skills'.

[Faust]

Dude, calm down, you're going over the top and it's damaging your argument.

[Red Lion]

8 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

 

Did you even READ THIS before posting it?  I mean, seriously, did you, or did you only read the headline and go 'AH HA!  I'll use this for a counter point!'?  It literally underlines exactly what I said.  I was pretty clear about the name being on the birth certificate.  Very clear.

Everything you just quoted is for situations when the father's name is NOT on the birth certificate.  Which, AGAIN, would also present a very large legal hurdle to any kind of child support.

Even if his name is on the certificate, he can be deemed unfit and his right to consent can be waived. The largest hurdle is in a situation where the father is present and active. Not just on the certificate, but actively supporting the mother and/or child.  If a woman can convince the court that it is in the child's best interest to be adopted out then that is the decision the court will go with. Not always easy but not impossible. 

The long and short of it is that you seem think a named father's consent is an ironclad requirement, while I think that's not as set in stone as you're making it out to be. 

Also, again, if all else fails, safe haven laws. If a woman really wants to give up her kid there are places she can leave it without giving her own identity.

[AshleyAshes]

7 hours ago, Red Lion said:

he can be deemed unfit and his right to consent can be waived.

Cause -that's- a piece of cake, right?

7 hours ago, Red Lion said:

Also, again, if all else fails, safe haven laws. If a woman really wants to give up her kid there are places she can leave it without giving her own identity.

I'm sorry, but... It's like you are using zero reasoning skills here.  Safe haven laws certianly do exist in the many US States but that isn't some 'black hole' where you can put a baby and 'poof it's gone.  If a woman soon after child birth gave up their child by these means and the biological father wanted to be involved or take custody, returning the child is a piece of cake.  Children are not that frequently given up like that so should a father report the child missing or that they believe the child was wrongfully given up to the state without their concent, it would be trivial for the authorities to track down the child and return it to the custody of the father.  Also, this would STILL custodial interference which is a CRIME.  Like, do you think the state is like 'TOO LATE!  IT'S OUR BABY NOW, AH HA HA HA HA! >:D'?  By returning the child to a parent, the child will not be a direct financial burden to the sate, returning the child to a parent is in the state's interest.  So if a father is active and invested in the parentage of their child, no, the mother really can't use safe haven laws with anything remoting approaching 'ease' no matter how you want to present it otherwise.

These concepts arn't rocket science, people.  This shouldn't need to be explained.  Please just think critically before you say stupid shit.

[Red Lion]

52 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Cause -that's- a piece of cake, right?

I'm sorry, but... It's like you are using zero reasoning skills here.  Safe haven laws certianly do exist in the many US States but that isn't some 'black hole' where you can put a baby and 'poof it's gone.  If a woman soon after child birth gave up their child by these means and the biological father wanted to be involved or take custody, returning the child is a piece of cake.  Children are not that frequently given up like that so should a father report the child missing or that they believe the child was wrongfully given up to the state without their concent, it would be trivial for the authorities to track down the child and return it to the custody of the father.  Also, this would STILL custodial interference which is a CRIME.  Like, do you think the state is like 'TOO LATE!  IT'S OUR BABY NOW, AH HA HA HA HA! >:D'?  By returning the child to a parent, the child will not be a direct financial burden to the sate, returning the child to a parent is in the state's interest.  So if a father is active and invested in the parentage of their child, no, the mother really can't use safe haven laws with anything remoting approaching 'ease' no matter how you want to present it otherwise.

These concepts arn't rocket science, people.  This shouldn't need to be explained.  Please just think critically before you say stupid shit.

Never said it was a piece of cake, it's still an available option and a good deal easier for women who are single to make a case that the father is uninvolved.  

On the safe haven law thing. I think you're overestimating the efficiency and willingness of the of the system to find the parents of abandoned children. There's actually a debate going on whether the  Safe Haven Laws are a violation of the father's rights. Specifically because it can be difficult for a father to find and reclaim an abandoned child. In NC and many other states the total anonymity and lack of legal ramifications mean that even if a father is actively looking for a child it is not a guarantee that he will succeed in finding it (If the child is left in another county or state his chances are extremely slim) And in NC there are no legal ramifications for a woman, married, unmarried, involved or uninvolved in a relationship if she chooses to leave her baby at a safe haven, unless signs of abuse are present. She is not required to identify herself, she is not required to name a father. It is not a crime nor is it currently considered custodial interference for her to leave her newborn at a hospital or fire station. In many states leaving your child at a safe haven relieves you of both your parental rights and legal liability.  And to be honest most "reasonable attempts" In NC, and I'm sure other states, particularly in the south, to find the non surrendering parent begin and end with a brief notice in the newspaper in the county where the child was surrendered. About the same amount of effort as finding a missing dog.  

Again, the biggest hurdle in giving up a child is going to be to a married woman with an involved partner. Most of which aren't going to pursue either safe haven or adoption processes in the first place. 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/safehaven.pdf
 

Quote

14 States and the District of Columbia require the department to request the local law enforcement agency to determine whether the baby has been reported as a missing child.23 In addition, five States require the department to check the putative father registry before a termination of parental rights petition can be filed

Five States also have provisions for a nonrelinquishing father to petition for custody of the child.26 In 18 States and Puerto Rico, the act of surrendering an infant to a safe haven is presumed to be a relinquishment of parental rights to the child, and no further parental consent is required for the child’s adoption.

only 14/50 states even require that law enforcement determine whether the baby is reported missing. It varies a lot between states but in a lot of cases effort to contact or find the father or reunite the child with the non-surrendering parent will be minimal to non-existent. 

[Vae]

I like how all of this shit stems from some form of trying to cherry pick and force relevance into a thread where there is none, when the fucking going understanding from the OP is that the father didn't want the child to begin with.

We're not talking about cases where there's a custodial struggle. We're talking about cases where the father doesn't want the child and doesn't want to pay child support.
Which safe haven laws serve to reinforce my point. The mother has options. Give the father the same.

That's the thread topic.
Get back on it.

[AshleyAshes]

8 hours ago, Red Lion said:

Specifically because it can be difficult for a father to find and reclaim an abandoned child. In NC and many other states the total anonymity and lack of legal ramifications mean that even if a father is actively looking for a child it is not a guarantee that he will succeed in finding it (If the child is left in another county or state his chances are extremely slim)

While not every state lists numbers, the state if Iowa only states it's only had 20 children surrendered, since 2002, through it's Safe Haven law, that's 1.25 children per YEAR.  In short, the number of children surrended this way is EXCEPTIONALLY low, so finding those children again, under such uncommon circumstances, will be exceptionally easy.

"We're looking for a child surrended via our safe haven laws who was done so unlawfully"

"Yeah, but we've only had ONE of those cases in the last nine months, you can't expect us to dig through all ONE of those files just to find a single baby, can you!?"

 

Commen sense.  Use it.  PLEASE.

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

On 4/22/2021 at 11:01 AM, Lissal said:

Definitely an interesting topic, that could generate a lot of debate.

Damn, necroing a 2 year thread. I'm not even mad.

[CrazyTundraWolf]

On 4/23/2021 at 8:19 PM, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

Damn, necroing a 2 year thread. I'm not even mad.

Power move if I've ever saw one.

[WALFTEAM]

the bots are honestly pretty advanced now