Is A Man Entitled To Fathers Rights In A Pregnancy?

[Taramere]

She still has choices after conception unlike men, who do not. How is forcing paternal support fair in that scenario? She has decided she won't have an abortion, she has decided she wants to keep the baby. What if the man wants the baby, can he take it? We're saying it's just as much his as hers, right?

 

Yes (in response to the last question - though I'd prefer to put it along the lines of "sharing parental rights and responsibilities" as I don't like to talk about children as though they're possessions).

 

Can he take the baby? In my jurisdiction, he could certainly apply for a residence order. I used to have a lot of these situations to deal with at work, and by far the most common scenario is for a minute of agreement between the parties to be drafted up after consultation with both. This would include contact and residence arrangements - which would generally be rough guidance rather than strict, set times to be adhered to.

 

In most cases that seems to work pretty well, but if disputes arise over contact or residence then it might be that the father will end up having to apply to the court. Usually solicitors on both sides would try to get them to reach some agreement without taking it to that level - but of course that doesn't always work out.

 

What if the guy is married and his wife is infertile and they would LOVE to take and care for the baby. Clearly they have a better situation, and he has just as much right to the child right? So maybe the father should get custody and the woman should pay support? What do you think?

 

I think it would depend very much on how the mother was coping. I've seen one situation where the father had a residence order and the mother paid child support (she was in a good job). It's not common, but it isn't impossible. In that situation, the child was older - and he wanted to live with his father.

 

Where it's a baby....trickier, because you can't get the child's views. You think they're clearly in a better situation. What I think is that without having really detailed knowledge about the situation of all parties, it would be impossible to comment usefully. In a situation like that, if the father and his wife wanted to apply for a residence order, the court would order a report by a safeguarder and/or a social worker in an effort to establish what was in the child's best interests - and make a decision that would be largely based on the guidance of experts.

[clv0116]

In a situation like that, if the father and his wife wanted to apply for a residence order, the court would order a report by a safeguarder and/or a social worker in an effort to establish what was in the child's best interests - and make a decision that would be largely based on the guidance of experts.

 

I'd like to know what percentage of those cases have been resolved by giving custody to the father, because I'm gonna go out on a limb and say in reality the chances of taking an infant from moms arms is so close to zero it's not worth thinking about. Feel free to show I'm wrong, I'll be refreshed if you're correct.

[clv0116]

Not every father who has to pay child support will show up and create drama. Some never want to meet their kid. I think that money benefits the child ....

 

So it is about the wallet after all. If we're all about benefiting the child, what shall we do for those who have 2 parents and still need financial help? Or those who for whatever reason can't force money from their father? What about those children? Don't they matter?

[Taramere]

I'd like to know what percentage of those cases have been resolved by giving custody to the father, because I'm gonna go out on a limb and say in reality the chances of taking an infant from moms arms is so close to zero it's not worth thinking about. Feel free to show I'm wrong, I'll be refreshed if you're correct.

 

If social services have concerns about the mother's ability to parent the child, then the father is the first port of call. If he's in the kind of stable set up you mention, then social services will give him strong support in applying for a residence order - and the chances are that he'll get it.

 

But if there aren't concerns about the mother's ability to parent the child, what would be the argument justifying, as you say, taking the infant from her arms? The correct thing would be for an agreement to be reached regarding a joint residence order - and to apply for the court to make an order where that agreement couldn't be reached. Where I live, child support is reduced in proportion to the amount of time the child spends living with the parent who pays child support. Calculator.

[clv0116]

The correct thing would be for an agreement to be reached regarding a joint residence order - and to apply for the court to make an order where that agreement couldn't be reached. Where I live, child support is reduced in proportion to the amount of time the child spends living with the parent who pays child support. Calculator.

 

So what percentage of the time would she get to spend with their child and how much support would she still pay the father in that case, where both are equally good parents and he wins the coin toss? I ask because you still seem to presume the mother will get support - why not the father, at least 50% of the time?

[Stockalone]

To me the phrase 'deadbeat dad' is more about a man who divorces and refuses to support kids he fathered and was participating in raising. Using it in this discussion is wrong, since the discussion is about men who would like to NOT be dads. At all.

 

I still consider them deadbeat dads. As long as his swimmers are not decommissioned, every man is a potential father. And when you have sex with a woman, a pregnancy can happen.

 

When that happens, a "but I never wanted to be a dad" can hardly be considered a reasonable argument.

 

You said you had a vasectomy, which I think is a very responsible (though drastic) way to take care of your side of the protection issue if you don't want kids.

 

 

The rest of your suggestions are also good but off topic. It's true that childrearing is grossly slanted in favor of woman and that should be addressed in all it's facets.

 

I brought up those points because I think there is more to consider than the rather small matter of child support. There is more to it than that. And if we actually consider changing things, why not try to change it all (or at least debate it) in one big reform instead of just isolated issues.

[Star Gazer]

BUT, can't we back that up a step and say that a woman who REALLY cares about her child, would NOT chose to bring a child into a situation in that a man wants no part of?

 

My mother really cared about me, and she did just that.

 

Then again, she didn't ask him for a dime, either.

[Taramere]

So what percentage of the time would she get to spend with their child and how much support would she still pay the father in that case, where both are equally good parents and he wins the coin toss? I ask because you still seem to presume the mother will get support - why not the father, at least 50% of the time?

 

I can't predict what percentage of the time she would get to spend with the child. If the two of them couldn't reach an agreement between them, then the agencies carrying out reports by the court's instruction would make recommendations.

 

Let's say she was working full time and earned £500 per week net, the father and his wife acted as main carers, she took the child at weekends - and also got the child on Christmas Eve or New Year's day, plus a week's holiday away somewhere per year....well you can see for yourself what the calculator I linked you to says. She'd be paying £54 per week in respect of the child. But that might vary according to other factors (eg whether she had another child who lived with her, whether the child's father was on benefits etc). Bear in mind, though, that I'm talking about the situation in the UK.

[clv0116]

I still consider them deadbeat dads.

 

And it's still not the proper colloquial/idiomatic use, and it links the situation we're discussing improperly to something a lot more reprehensible. It's use of loaded words.

 

 

 

You said you had a vasectomy, which I think is a very responsible (though drastic) way to take care of your side of the protection issue if you don't want kids.

 

Cryo FTW.

 

 

 

I brought up those points because I think there is more to consider than the rather small matter of child support. There is more to it than that. And if we actually consider changing things, why not try to change it all (or at least debate it) in one big reform instead of just isolated issues.

 

I agree, I think the idea of fathers being able to take custody is particularly interesting, assuming the parents don't want to be involved, as we are assuming here.

[clv0116]

I can't predict ....

 

Let's say she was working full time and earned £500 per week net, the father and his wife acted as main carers, she took the child at weekends - and also got the child on Christmas Eve or New Year's day, plus a week's holiday away somewhere per year....well you can see for yourself what the calculator I linked you to says. She'd be paying £54 per week in respect of the child. But that might vary according to other factors (eg whether she had another child who lived with her, whether the child's father was on benefits etc). Bear in mind, though, that I'm talking about the situation in the UK.

 

I can predict a few things.

 

First it's gonna be so rare it's practically never gonna happen. If the mother even resembles being 'fit' it's a slam dunk, she's the primary. This is fundamentally unfair.

 

Second, you seem to indicate even in the vanishingly small number of cases where it might happen that her other kids would mitigate her contribution. Does that work for Dads as well?

 

It's sad how we defend broken practice with unimplemented theory.

[sally4sara]

Not every father who has to pay child support will show up and create drama. Some never want to meet their kid. I think that money benefits the child, even if the mother never touches the money. She can set up an account for her child to use it when it turns 18 for college or the kid can donate it to charity if it doesn't want anything from an absent father.

 

I don't think of child support as forcing a guy to be a father. He is the biological father either way, and child support is due to that fact. Nothing more, nothing less. If he chooses to meet or even take part in his child's life is an entirely different matter.

 

And a vasectomy is the way to go if the guy knows he never wants kids. Some frozen swimmers in different locations (just in case) would be enough if he ever changes his mind.

 

And there is even a change to undo a vasectomy, though I don't know how often that is a success.

 

It is a difficult thing to get some fathers who do breeze in and out of a kid's life to pay child support. While I am sure there are men who are willing to contribute money but want no personal or emotional obligation, let's be realistic here, it is far less likely to find a man who wants no part of fatherhood but will come out of pocket consistently and reliably for 18 years to a child they want no relationship with.

Single parenting requires that parent to stand strong and closely monitor their own finances. If the other parent pays a pittance or an amount no one can predict or count on regularly, it amounts to roughly the same as nothing.

 

If Ronald is raising his daughter alone and his expenses equal "X" amount of money, he must see to it that he brings in at least "X" amount of money. If the courts hold the uninvolved mother accountable for contributing "Y" amount of money, Ronald would be foolish to count on this and only make "X-Y" amount of money because he was told the mother would pay "Y".

One month where the mother does not pay "Y" results in Ronald and the child facing financial unrest.

So either the single parent makes it 365 days a year alone and considers anything the other parent contributes a bonus, or the child never sees financial stability under their care at all.

 

All I'm pointing out is perhaps an opportunity for unwilling fathers to give a heads up in the first trimester when the mother can use that tidbit of info to shape her own choice. The result is usually roughly the same as it is now either way.

[Taramere]

I can predict a few things.

 

First it's gonna be so rare it's practically never gonna happen. If the mother even resembles being 'fit' it's a slam dunk, she's the primary. This is fundamentally unfair.

 

Do you have any suggestions as to why the mother is generally the primary carer? I would suggest that it's

 

a) because she carries and gives birth to the child, and therefore from the moment of its birth it's better placed to bond with her than with the father. Not to say it won't also bond with the father, but the initial bonding process is with the mother.

 

b) For all kinds of reasons, the most normal set up in our society continues to be that even in the case of married couples with children, mothers will tend to take on a higher burden of child-care matters - often being stay at home mothers (where this is financially feasible) or working part-time. Stay at home dad continues to be the exception rather than the rule. So all said, courts will continue to see it as normal for the mother rather than the father to act as primary carer - because this is the most common situation couples choose to have. Often because the man earns more.

 

Second, you seem to indicate even in the vanishingly small number of cases where it might happen that her other kids would mitigate her contribution. Does that work for Dads as well?

 

Yes, it does. If you take another look at the calculator you'll see that other children in the household of the parent paying support will have an impact on how much support is payable. It doesn't discriminate between the genders.

 

It's sad how we defend broken practice with unimplemented theory.

 

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean.

[Stockalone]

So it is about the wallet after all. If we're all about benefiting the child, what shall we do for those who have 2 parents and still need financial help? Or those who for whatever reason can't force money from their father? What about those children? Don't they matter?

 

The money is the least a parent can do. I would prefer it if a parent takes an active part in his child's life. Unless the parent is unfit of course, abusing his child or something like that.

 

Where I come from, the government pays a monthly sum of money for every child (regardless of the parents' income or if the child has one or two parents in his life).

 

If the mother is a single mom, and there is no father to pay child support for whatever reason, the mother gets child support from the government.

 

If the family or the single parent lives below the poverty threshold, there is an additional support available for kids, though it is not nearly enough and has unfortunately been changed for the worse in recent times. Child poverty is more than just an immediate money problem.

 

It means less participation in an active social life, a lack of a good, balanced diet. Not enough money to partake in sports activities, no money to take lessons to learn an instrument, etc.

 

Child support exists for a good reason.

[clv0116]

Where I come from, the government pays a monthly sum of money for every child (regardless of the parents' income or if the child has one or two parents in his life).

 

If the mother is a single mom, and there is no father to pay child support for whatever reason, the mother gets child support from the government.

 

If the family or the single parent lives below the poverty threshold, there is an additional support available for kids ....

 

So we do have a solution for those cases - I guess we just stumbled upon a fair way to take care of the money issue for men who opted out in the first trimester ; he's out of the picture and we deal with it from there in the way we normally would. Wow that was easy.

[sally4sara]

Child support exists for a good reason.

 

I agree, but sometimes the effort to get an unwilling parent to contribute eats into the involved parent's stamina and already limited resources. Eventually, most realize the efforts to get something from the uninvolved parent would be best spent on earning the money on their own and foregoing the inevitable headache I've seen and felt it become.

 

So then we are right back to a situation that could just as easily been some guy in the first trimester saying "No thanks, no fatherhood for me because I have better things to do than be a doner and/or wallet."

[clv0116]

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

In theory the man can take control as the primary, in theory the woman might even pay him support, in theory it sounds so fair, but in reality it never happens so let's stick to reality until we manage to implement the theoretical system and make theory match reality.

 

The reality is that in case of an unwanted pregnancy, the woman has an option out of parenthood and the man does not, and that is fundamentally unjust. Basically, if she wishes, she is assured to retain the child and dig into the mans wallet. Why discuss the wallet? Because that's all she can currently take by force. If somehow she could force him to babysit then we would be discussing that as well.

[Taramere]

I agree, but sometimes the effort to get an unwilling parent to contribute eats into the involved parent's stamina and already limited resources. Eventually, most realize the efforts to get something from the uninvolved parent would be best spent on earning the money on their own and foregoing the inevitable headache I've seen and felt it become.

 

So then we are right back to a situation that could just as easily been some guy in the first trimester saying "No thanks, no fatherhood for me because I have better things to do than be a doner and/or wallet."

 

That's where our system of having a child support agency comes in. The CSA does all the work (with varying degrees of success/co-operation from the mother) in tracking down the absent and disinterested father. It's very often the case that mothers don't co-operate with the CSA in naming the child's father - and a new law is coming in obliging single mothers to name the child's father on the birth certificate so that it's easier for the CSA to hunt him down for payment. Fathers who fail to pay can go to prison.

 

So over here it's not so much an aliment chasing mother who is the disinterested father's worst enemy. It's the CSA. I have to say that although it has its flaws, I think it's a good system. I don't see why the benefits system should bear the financial burden of rearing children where the natural father is capable of doing so - and the assessment the CSA makes is designed not to take an enormous chunk out of the father's income. It aims to make him responsible rather than to put him in the poorhouse.

[clv0116]

Fathers who fail to pay can go to prison.

 

I thought debtor prisons went out of fashion in civilized countries?

[Woggle]

Until we see more effort in promoting a man's right to see his child and his right to be a presence in a child's life I don't want to hear about women receiving their check every month. If feminists really cared about children so much they would not have spent the past few decades trying to devalue the role of the father. They would not have forced fathers out of the home and out of their children's lives. The only time they ever care about the father is when he doesn't send the check.

[nittygritty]

I thought debtor prisons went out of fashion in civilized countries?

 

It's child neglect.

[Taramere]

I thought debtor prisons went out of fashion in civilized countries?

 

Nope. There are still situations where non-payment of certain debts is regarded as a criminal offence here. People here have been sent to prison for non payment of child support and also for non payment of council tax. Debts between individuals or between individuals and companies are seen as a civil matter....but if you owe a government agency money and don't pay up, watch out!

 

So although your response to Stockalone suggested you see benefits to a system where the taxpayer foots the bill for supporting children who are in poverty....

 

So we do have a solution for those cases - I guess we just stumbled upon a fair way to take care of the money issue for men who opted out in the first trimester ; he's out of the picture and we deal with it from there in the way we normally would. Wow that was easy.

 

...you can perhaps see that such a system doesn't automatically provide people with a free or easy ride away from it all.

[clv0116]

...you can perhaps see that such a system doesn't automatically provide people with a free or easy ride away from it all.

 

Who said life was easy? This isn't about an easy life, this is about one human being legally enabled to impose their will upon another, that's generally considered wrong.

 

Suppose we make it a law that blue-eyed people can't get ticketed for jaywalking but brown-eyed people who do get cited can decide, if they wish, to have most of their fine paid by the nearest person with blue eyes. It's so stupidly unfair it's laughable.

[clv0116]

It's child neglect.

 

Is having a child when the father says he wants nothing to do with it also neglect?

[malcom5]

IMO, if the communication isn't happening with something as important as the possibility of pregnancy, then the sex shouldn't be happening either!

 

So you're saying you've never had a one night stand? Where it was simply all about the sex, no strings attached? Accidents happen. It almost sounds like you view it as a punishment.

[Stockalone]

It is a difficult thing to get some fathers who do breeze in and out of a kid's life to pay child support. While I am sure there are men who are willing to contribute money but want no personal or emotional obligation, let's be realistic here, it is far less likely to find a man who wants no part of fatherhood but will come out of pocket consistently and reliably for 18 years to a child they want no relationship with.

 

Single parenting requires that parent to stand strong and closely monitor their own finances. If the other parent pays a pittance or an amount no one can predict or count on regularly, it amounts to roughly the same as nothing.

 

That probably depends on the country. Here, if the man doesn't pay and unless he lives under the poverty treshold himself, you can get a court order and the government will deduct child support or alimony directly from his salary. Which means his employer pays him his salary minus what the guy ows his kids or family. The child support or alimony will be paid to those who are entitled to it. The man will never see that money.

 

 

If Ronald is raising his daughter alone and his expenses equal "X" amount of money, he must see to it that he brings in at least "X" amount of money. If the courts hold the uninvolved mother accountable for contributing "Y" amount of money, Ronald would be foolish to count on this and only make "X-Y" amount of money because he was told the mother would pay "Y".

One month where the mother does not pay "Y" results in Ronald and the child facing financial unrest.

So either the single parent makes it 365 days a year alone and considers anything the other parent contributes a bonus, or the child never sees financial stability under their care at all.

 

True, there is no guarantee that this money will come steadily every month. But there is a good chance that it does in my country. We have a reporting obligation, so the government will know where the parent works and lives that doesn't pay. Unless they drop off the face of the earth the government will go after him and take what they can in accordance with the law.

 

It doesn't work perfectly, but in general, it does work for most.

 

 

All I'm pointing out is perhaps an opportunity for unwilling fathers to give a heads up in the first trimester when the mother can use that tidbit of info to shape her own choice. The result is usually roughly the same as it is now either way.

 

Planning security to make an informed decision. Yes, that makes sense.

 

 

 

 

And it's still not the proper colloquial/idiomatic use, and it links the situation we're discussing improperly to something a lot more reprehensible. It's use of loaded words.

 

I am not a native speaker. Sorry if that term is loaded, what would be the politically correct term then? Fathers in denial with a non-existent payment morale?

 

 

Cryo FTW.

 

Cryo is cryogenics, but what does FTW stand for?

 

 

I agree, I think the idea of fathers being able to take custody is particularly interesting, assuming the parents don't want to be involved, as we are assuming here.

 

I don't think it's the most pressing issue, but it should worth to be discussed if such an reform should ever be undertaken.