Since the concensus in this forum is that a man has no rights after conception, how do we deal with

[rd_kent]

this kind of crap?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_re_us/us_wrongfully_jailed


We have very lively debates here about what rights and responsibilities a man has after conception (the most favored opinion being that a man has no rights and full responsibility), so something has got to change.

[mzteris]

1. paternity test.

That - or keep your pants zipped until you know you're in a stable relationship.

[Warpy]

5. Unfortunately, some judges are still relying on English common law

that stated any child born to a marriage was a child of that marriage, both parents. This makes a certain amount of sense when there is an emotional bond, when that child looks up to the husband as "dad," even though there was a separate sperm donor. Financial abandonment is bad enough; emotional abandonment can be crippling.

Yes, this guy got abused by the system. However, the real victim of this whole tragedy is the boy.

Men have the right to say no to sex with an unstable partner, or to wear condoms to protect themselves from future liability. This is where their choice comes in, although they dislike the nature of the choice.

While they think with the wrong head and put pleasure ahead of responsibility, stories like this one will continue to be repeated.

[rd_kent]

11. See, I love how the ultimate responsibility is ALWAYS placed on the man!

I always hear that argument that "he should have thought about it before he had sex" which is total BS! Most people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction. Its a two way street. Perhaps if a woman had to declare her intentions to the man before sex, men may make a different decision. Responsibility goes both ways, so should the choice.

[Warpy]

26. Yes, the horror of all that breastfeeding

baby tending, potty training, bathing, watching over when the kid is sick, floor walking all night....

Men do some of these things, but they're just "helping out." The real responsibility for raising that child belongs to the woman. Men who pay child support miss all that backbreaking labor.

Both men and women sow wild oats and hope for crop failure. Emotionally stable women protect themselves. If a man wants to protect himself against future liability for offspring he does not want from a woman who might not be that stable, then it's up to him to wear a condom.

Whining about it afterward makes him look weak.

[Azalea]

30. No weaker

Than a woman who would get an abortion or give up the child for adoption. Not being a parent and still having sex is not a sign of weakenss, its a sign of being sexually active.

[rd_kent]

38. So you make my point for me

If I read your post correctly, a man who doesn't want a child or to "help out" with child rearing responsibilities SHOULD pay support because the mother CHOSE to have a child and is deserving of money because the father isn't around? Sounds like revenge money, not child support.

[Warpy]

39. No, he pays child support because he was too stupid

to protect himself from liability by wearing a CONDOM.

[rd_kent]

42. Ahh, i see, so its money because he was a dumbass?

I guess thats my point. The system needs to change for the benefit of ALL parties involved.

[kaylynwright]

45. The ultimate responsibilty is not the man's

You said that responsibility goes both ways. That's why a man should wear a condom if he is having sex for pleasure. And he should choose partners he trusts are on birth control and not looking to have babies any time soon. Condoms. That's the man's choice.

The ultimate responsibility is not placed on the man. Maybe the man has to pay child support, but that doesn't mean he has to pay the rest of the bills for the baby while working, feeding the baby, washing the baby, taking care of the baby, etc. The man does NOT have the ultimate responsibility since the ultimate responsibility is actively participating in raising the child.

[rd_kent]

6. Well, there was a paternity test

and he was still held responsible.

And don't give me that shit about keeping my pants zipped up. I could say keep your legs closed. This is about child support and responsibility, not sex.

[mzteris]

22. yeah, and if you don't want the responsibility

you should be thinking of that before you unzip.

As should the woman before she "opens".

My point being, you can't willy-nilly have sex and then expect to get off the hook because you didn't want her to "get pregnant". If you don't want her to "get herself pregnant" (:eyes:) then you shouldn't be participating.

[Azalea]

29. you do realize

that in this case the man was NOT the biological father of the child he was incarcerated for not financially supporting?

[mzteris]

32. but was he acting as the FATHER

to the child.

Biology doesn't necessarily a parent make, you know.

It would be like my STBE saying he won't pay because our youngest son isn't his biologically. Well he isn't mine, either - we adopted him.

Also, when did the guy KNOW he wasn't the parental unit?

[Azalea]

33. You

are missing the point.

If biology doesn't make a person a parent, then zipping it up, keeping it in your pants, keeping your legs closed has nothing to do with child support.

SO.

Yes you are correct in that he DOES need to pay child support, because he acted as the father but this case says as much about the mother as it does the father. SHe lied, her lie not only affected the father (he thought he had a biological child but he did not and then it cost him jail time) her SON thought he knew his biological father and as it turns out, he does not.

No man should ever take parental responsibility for a child without paternity being confirmed through DNA evidence if they do not wish to parent a non-biological child. This protects him from this type of situation and the child from resentment and discovery of false paternity later on in life, which can really be damaging to the children.

[av8rdave]

7. That's the best advice. However...

Things can happen. When I got married the first time, we waited 5 years to have children. I wanted to be certain we were in a stable relationship and the resulting children would be raised in a stable home with both of their biological parents.

When my youngest was 3 and oldest 6, the marriage disintegrated. I made some gut wrenching discoveries and realized the relationship hadn't been what I thought it was for several years.

I was fortunate to make out well in the ensuing custody issue, but it was difficult, since here the family court system has a pretty strong bias towards maternal custody (in all fairness, I have male acquaintances who got divorced and apparently did not want custody). I believe one factor in my favor was that the kids' mother, despite a lot of noise to the contrary, really didn't want the responsibility.

Either/both parents who demonstrate a desire to take on or continue the role of parenting deserve rights. That is what is truly in the best interest of the children.

[Azalea]

12. Your very last sentence

says it all with an emphasis on "demonstrate a desire to take on or continue the role of parenting."

[Azalea]

2. precisely

Why I think child support only occurs when someone decides to be a parent. You can't get a paternity test without the mother's consent and if she knows you have money but aren't the father why would she consent to one?

BUT whether or not biology comes into play doens't matter he decided to be a father to this child so he has paternal responsibility that includes financial support for the child. However, adulthood begins at 18 and no one should be on the hook for child support after that.

[naaman fletcher]

3. that depends on the state..

In Oklahoma you can force a paternity test. Although you have to have a good reason for it, you can't just go around demanding them all the time. On another note, Oklahoma is very good about father's rights. Basically under the law the father has as much rights as the mother. Some of the older judges, particularly in rural areas, still treat the dad like dirt, but in Oklahoma City and Tulsa a dad who has the ability can usually get 50% time with his kids.

[Azalea]

8. and that

Is what is needed. Go Oklahoma! Why keep a non-abusive father away from his child? A mother can be strung out onc rack and maintain custody of the children unless you can prove repeated physical abuse in most cases. That's not a good environment for anyone, let alone someone who can't defend themselves. If the two people who created the child actually want to parent that child and are not abusive there is no logical reason in not letting that happen.

[noamnety]

9. That's false.

"You can't get a paternity test without the mother's consent"

You can either have it done with the mother's consent - OR with a court order.

[Azalea]

15. Courts

generally will not order one without the mother's consent and just about everywhere if you start taking care of the child, beleiving that the child was biologically your own, you are on the hook for taking responsibility, even if DNA proves otherwise. Don't believe it, reread the article at hand, the man was proven NOT the father several times and still was jailed for not paying child support.

[imdjh]

21. I read the article. The man accepted paternity until nine years ago, ie kid age 12.

So why would he ask for a paternity test when the kid turned 12? Did he function as a father until then? Did he function as a father after that?

And what kind of a piece of shit would try to prove he isn't the father of a son who believes him to be his father?

[Azalea]

23. On that

I totally and WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. He and the mom are both shitty folks, the mom for lying about paternity because now her son may never know who his biological father is and may end up screwing a half -sister or two because of it. If his bio dad impregnanted his mom and left, chances are he's done it again. If she knows there is a possibility that another man impregnanted her, as a mother who presumably wanted her child's father int eh child's life, honesty was the order of the day. Now as for the guy, shameful. Once you accept responsibility you ARE a father, DNA doesn't make a parent.

I don't think throwing him in jail did anything to strengthen his relationship with his non-biological son but punishment needed to be pushed. The decision to be a parent needs to be made and irreversible somewhere between knowledge of conception and infancy and I mean newborn infancy.

[LWolf]

4. Since the kid is 21 now,

dna tests probably weren't in widespread use at the time.

From this point forward, a dna test solves the problem when there is a question of paternity.

As far as consensus goes, I don't agree that the male has no rights and full responsibility.

Of course, I'm the grandmother of a child my son successfully won full custody of, in court. He certainly has all the responsibility, but he has rights, as well.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. For child support purposes, maybe it should be incumbent on mom to prove paternity first...

...rather than the responsibility of "the dad" to prove that he is not.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[damntexdem]

17. In this case of a poor mom, the onus should not be on the mom.

This was intended state 'recovery' of welfare monies to the AFDC case, so the state should have had the burden of proving paternity.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. I agree with that. n/t

[Azalea]

24. Excellent point!

There is no logical reason in seeking recovery of funds from the nearest scapegoat. In general the state should first either prove biological and accepted paternity or accepted paternity alone.

[imdjh]

18. I think that if we did DNA test on every hospital birth, there would be a lawsuit.

I'm not sure who would bring it, but I can imagine there being one.

[Azalea]

27. Yeah

There really would and I could imagine the first lawsuit coming from a woman who was trying to name a non-biological father the sperm donor. Fathers should teach their sons to request proof of paternity if they do not wish to parent a non-biological child before accepting paternhood and its responsibility. ANd victims of stutory rape should absolutely have blanket protection from ever being tested for paternity or sued for child support.

[damntexdem]

13. The paternity test showed he was not the father, so all debts should have been cleared ,

and the state should have repaid him for what he had paid.

Now, what's this about a 'no rights' 'consensus in this forum'?

[rd_kent]

16. Go through the threads

Anytime the issue of men's choice comes up, its all "he should have thought about it before he put his penis in her" bullshit. I am just calling it like I see it.

[imdjh]

14. It has to be handled case by case.

You can't accept that a child is yours, and be the dad to that child, and then demand a DNA test when you want to sever ties to the mother and the child. Not being genetically related to a child is not the whole of parenthood, or adoptive fathers (or mothers, or cofathers, or comothers) could walk away from adopted children when the parental coupling ends.

The law used to be pretty concrete: kids born to a marriage were your kids regardless of their appearance or any other factor, and kids born out of wedlock were not your kids unless you acknowledged them to be. DNA is a doubled edged sword.

Now if your point is that women typically get the primary custody of the kids unless they actually smoke crack in front of the judge and six cameras, then that's an issue that does need to be addressed.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. In the case of my son, he wasn't required to pay any child support until a paternity test was done.

Nor was he required to pay the state back for the birth expenses they paid. Of course, the mother of the child, continues to commit fraud by having the child enrolled in two states' health care programs, while my son pays an additional $72 a month to carry insurance on her.

[Azalea]

25. wait..

Your son had to put the child's mother on his insurance or the child is a daughter? Where is that legal because you have to be comeone's dependant in the vast majority of cases to even be on their insurance.

[sinkingfeeling]

34. He's required to pay insurance for his daughter, while the mother refuses to use it. She lets one of

the two states (lives in border town) pay medical for the child because she doesn't want to make the copays.

[Azalea]

35. That

is crazy. DOes she make ANY financial contribution from her own non-government funded income to her daughter's upbringing?

[sinkingfeeling]

36. Short answer: 'no'.

[Azalea]

37. Wow.

Just. wow.

[uppityperson]

40. No, that is Fraud and should be reported to the state's she is using.

[uppityperson]

41. that is fraud. You can report that to the states department of whatever

health and human services, not sure what it is called where you are. If they get notice that she is covered under a private insurance, they will then bill the private insurance. She may not have to do the co-pays if she is low income enough, but I am sure that whichever state it is would appreciate saving some money.

[rocktivity]

28. Why were the 2000 DNA test results ignored?

And why was he ordered to make back payments? This is no "test case."

:crazy:
rocktivity

[Azalea]

31. Because

He was a parent. Not in the biological sense but because he took parental responsibility and accepted paternity before knowing whether or not there was a biological relation. He trusted a woman who wasn't worth snot obviously but he trusted her nonetheless. He then became a part of an innocent child's life taking on the role of father, when he removes himself from that role, he hurts the child. The mother being on welfare is just *ugh* her lying is just *ugh* and him dumping the child because of HER actions is just *ugh*.

Jailtime was overboard though.

[Warpy]

43. His rights are excercised before conception

when he decides whether to protect himself from liability by wearing a condom.

C-O-N-D-O-M. That's right, guys, that's how you protect yourself whether or not you like the idea.

After that, since the risk to health, job, finances, social support system and LIFE is 100% the woman's, he has no real say although I'm sure he says plenty.

He faces liability if the pregnancy is continued because he failed to protect himself from it. His choice was to risk it.

However, in this case, the DNA test should let him off the hook. Sometimes the law makes a serious blunder and sacrifices the rights of an innocent male to preserve the rights of the child to support and this is one of them. I sincerely hope an appeal relieves him of this burden.

I'll bet he exercises his right to protect himself from liability from now on, though.

[Iris]

44. Perhaps you should save this and post it the next time a "hot" young teacher has sex w/her student

There are always plenty of threads with lots of men jumping on to ask "what's wrong with that?"

[fizzgig]

46. i don't agree that it is fully the man's responsibility when it comes to contraception

for me, it is my responsibility to make sure i don't get pregnant. yes, men should be responsible as well, but i don't think it's fair to say it's entirely up to the man.

[Iris]

47. do you think that's what people are saying?

or are they saying that condoms and vasectomy are b/c methods a man can control and if he's serious about not having kids, he should use those options?

[fizzgig]

48. i do think that's what people are saying

i see a lot of comments about how the man should keep it zipped up. yes, i do think they have a responsibility to take precautions, but i think the woman has equal responsibility in that arena.

[Iris]

49. true and in most cases, the woman takes on all the responsibility

so, ultimately, if a man doesn't want a child, he has 2 choices if he wants to take matters into his own hands - condom or vasectomy.

Likewise, a woman has the pill, barrier methods, and tubal ligation.

(I guess there's also abstinence but I think that's stupid and hardly a choice at all.)

[iverglas]

50. I don't agree that the earth is flat

for me, it is my responsibility to make sure i don't get pregnant.

And that responsibility is TO ... yourself?

And so any responsibility a man has to make sure you don't get pregnant is TO ... himself?

This would fall under the heading of "quit whining" / "nobody to blame but yourself".

If you didn't want something to happen and you did nothing to prevent it, whose fault is it when it happens? Why should you be able to shift the consequences of what you did onto someone else?

If I didn't wnat to get pregnant and I did nothing to prevent my getting pregnant, whose fault is it when I get pregnant?

If a man didn't want me to get pregnant and did nothing to prevent my getting pregnant, whose fault is it when I get pregnant?

Sure, there can be joint fault. Nobody wanted me to get pregnant, and nobody did anything to prevent it.

I don't get to blame him for the consequences I bear, though; and he doesn't get to blame me for the consequences he bears.

And he doesn't get to tell me, when something happens that he did nothing to prevent, that I and an individual who had no part in the decisions that led to their existence get to bear the full consequences of his decisions and actions.


Please do stop pretending that anyone said anything that no one said.