Judge offers deadbeat dads choice
 

Judge offers choice of jail or vasectomies to deadbeat dads.

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040610/5bca...a1ddc8c_1.html

"Similar cases are already percolating. A March 31 decision by Monroe County, N.Y., family court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ordered an allegedly drug-addicted homeless couple to stop having children. The case, In the matter of BobbiJean P., No. NN 03626-03, was a first in New York. The couple's four children were placed in foster care last year and the woman is pregnant again. The judge determined that they should be given free family planning to prevent future pregnancy.

The 35-year-old mother is identified in court papers only as Stephanie. Rodney Evers, 54, is the father of three of the four children, including a 6-year-old boy. The younger children, ages 4, 2 and 1, tested positive for cocaine at birth.

In a 12-page opinion, [Judge] O'Connor rejected the argument that having unlimited children is a constitutional right, saying that the court must be allowed to balance the interest of privacy with those of the society that has to raise neglected children."


I think the same option should be offered to the women, since they can be just as irresponsible as the men.


Sidhe

edited to add quote.

Alright, I'm probably gonna get reamed for this, but hey, I appreciate a good reaming if you can genuinely provide a persuasive argument counter to mine...

Why does this society not place any responsibility on the choice a single woman makes to keep her baby? That is, standard scenario goes along the lines of 1.) Woman gets pregnant 2.) Woman decides not to give baby up for adoption 3.) Child support payments from father ensue for the next 18 years. Why is it a given that women may decide step #2 without any input from the father, but then he must pay for it for the next 18 years?

Obviously, a man should not be able to force a woman to give the baby up for adoption, but shouldn't his opinion be valid? I think that if a man wishes to not have the child, he should be precluded from both visitation and child support payments. Then it is up to the mother to decide whether she will CHOOSE to be a single parent, or whether she will choose to give the baby up for adoption.

The deadbeat dads of the world aren't paying their child support anyway, and the good dads would be paying because they'd want to know their kids.

There, I said it. Go on now, tell me why I'm wrong.

Well, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. I will say, though, that if the guy doesn't want to have to support a child, then he should do the same thing that I believe a woman who does not want a child should do: either keep it in your pants, or make damned sure that you use birth control.

A little responsibility isn't going to kill anyone. The reason the dads have to pay, even if they want nothing to do with the child, is because he helped to create that child; because he is not there to help raise it, there is more of a burden on the mother who wishes to keep the child (do you know how hard it is to afford daycare? You have to have daycare to get a job, but you can't get daycare till you have a job. Plus diapers, food, the list goes on.) One can't go around sowing one's wild oats without expecting to have to eventually pay for it. It's very hard for a single parent (of either sex) to raise a child by themselves.


That's my two cents.

Sidhe

I do know how much daycare costs, and that's what I'm saying--the woman should have to take this into account. It IS very hard to raise a child as a single parent, but many women vindictively think they'll be ok because "he'll have to pay for this baby he made." Also known as "the baby she kept."

Adoption is a completely viable option, but it has a vicious stigma, whereas being a single mother is turned into a thing of pride, which it totally shouldn't be.

*Nods* I can see your point. Unfortunately when there is no responsibility imposed upon men by society what tends to happen is a fair few lasses get pregnant and the lad isnt ready to face such a thing so simply decides not to deal with it at all by denying any responsibility.....the lass is then left with a decision to make which is heavily influenced by physiological changes she is experiencing and which she has very little control over. It's a very different decision that she faces than the one the lad faces. She will have to either go through a lengthy pregnancy and labour with all the chemical bonding that comes along with it or she will have to go through the distress of abortion. Whatever decision she makes the investment she has in that decision is huge. It is not comparable to the lad's decision as to whether to support her should she choose not to give up the baby she has bonded with *or* to abort the foetus she carries

Not wrong, not at all.

However, what's the end result? His opinion would be give up the baby, her opinion is that she'd rather keep it (for whatever reason). So, if we went by HIS opinion (of not wanting the baby), he gets out of paying support and if we went by HER opinion (wanting to keep the baby), he STILL gets out of paying support????

Sorry fellas: you don't want kids, wrap that shit up TIGHT! (or get that golden snip) And ladies, you know what to do too!!!.
:rolleyes:

So, if we went by HIS opinion (of not wanting the baby), he gets out of paying support and if we went by HER opinion (wanting to keep the baby), he STILL gets out of paying support????

He also doesn't ever get to see his children, which is a horrifying thought to many men.

Also, I think many women are not well-informed about how visitation and child support work when they file that paternity suit. I know several women who, had they known how hard visitation would be for them--that is, to have their kids frequently sleeping somewhere else, and come back talking about the new thing dad bought them or their new stepmother or the violent movie they were allowed to watch--they would have never told the man they were pregnant at all, they would have just quietly broken up with him and lived their own life with their child, without support payments.

I agree with DanaC that there are hormonal imbalances that cause women to make irrational decisions to keep the children despite the life they can expect, but I think if families and friends looked more favorably on adoption it would help.

So why should the woman be the only one who has to take responsibility? It takes two to tango, and if you're going to have the fun of making the baby, you should have the work of taking responsibility as well.



Perhaps if the men started taking their responsibilities, there wouldn't be so many single mothers out there, hm? Why should a woman be forced to give up her child merely because the father decides he doesn't feel like doing his part?


Not all single mothers are welfare deadbeats. Some are divorced, some were abandoned, etc. If she IS on birth control, and accidentally gets pregnant, then it's not like she didn't take precautions.

Everyone knows how I feel about people breeding out of control. I don't like the idea of women who keep having kids just to get more money out of the system. These are the women I think this offer should apply equally to, as well as drug addicts and abusers of both sexes.

However, apart from that, it's not only the woman's responsibility. She can't make the baby by herself. The simple fact is, you wanna play, you should be prepared to pay. Why make the child suffer?



Sidhe

WHAT?? Hormonal imbalances? Irrational decisions? Guess it never occurred to you that the woman might LOVE her child DESPITE the fact that caring for that child alone may be a hardship? That isn't an irrational decision caused by hormonal imbalances.


So do you propose that men can just go along screwing around, leaving fatherless children behind, and it's the mother's fault that she doesn't abort or give the child up?


Sidhe

Umm.....I dont think thats really what I meant *chuckles* i just meant that the decisions around whther or not to keep a child once the pregnancy is under way may well be influenced by the chemical preparations a woman's body is going through. That doesnt mean they are led by their hormones into irrationality. My point was that it may not be as simple a decision for a prospective mother than for a prospective father because the prospective mother is undergoing a physical process which I would imagine might change her perspective in regards to the child's future.

So why should the woman be the only one who has to take responsibility?

Because she does not HAVE to take responsibility. She CHOOSES not to give the child up for adoption.

Perhaps if the men started taking their responsibilities, there wouldn't be so many single mothers out there, hm?

It's a little ridiculous to assume that all these single mothers are just pining for their ex-boyfriends to marry them and the men are refusing. Many (if not most) of the women don't want to be married to that man either.

Not all single mothers are welfare deadbeats. Some are divorced, some were abandoned, etc. If she IS on birth control, and accidentally gets pregnant, then it's not like she didn't take precautions.

I agree. But first, I'm only talking about babies out of wedlock here, divorced parents were already both involved in their children's lives and therefore continued visitation with both is highly desirable. And second, if she DID take precautions, then so did he, it's nobody's fault. And society "takes precautions" in that it provides the opportunity for adoption. Her decision not to give the baby up for adoption, though, is not taking advantage of those precautions, just as if she had chosen not to take birth control in the first place. It therefore becomes her responsibility.

Why make the child suffer?

If the child were put up for adoption it would (in all likelihood) not suffer. While foster care is riddled with abuse, adoptions usually go extremely well--because there is no money received by the person who keeps the child. When money is involved, people begin to act selfishly.

WHAT?? Hormonal imbalances? Irrational decisions? Guess it never occurred to you that the woman might LOVE her child DESPITE the fact that caring for that child alone may be a hardship? That isn't an irrational decision caused by hormonal imbalances.

Yes, of course they love the children. I didn't mean to imply that they didn't. What I'm saying is when deciding whether to keep the baby, the "hardship" they are considering is tempered with "Well, I'll just make him pay child support" instead of "I'm really going to have to go it alone here."

Many, many women who have decided to give their children up for adoption change their mind when it's born, because of the hormonal changes and the innate maternal bonding. They rationalize all the ways it's better for THEM (the mothers) to keep the baby after all, instead of remembering what led them to decide to adopt in the first place, that they do not have the financial/emotional/whatever capacity to raise this child and that the child will suffer because of this.


So do you propose that men can just go along screwing around, leaving fatherless children behind, and it's the mother's fault that she doesn't abort or give the child up?

It's not her fault. It's her choice. She'd better get used to considering the child's welfare when she makes decisions, even if they're hard for her to make (i.e., giving up her child for her child's sake).

And please, I'm only talking about adoption.

The word "only" has no place in that sentence.
Deciding to give up a child must be the most appalling decision to make. It also may not be the better decision to make. What is a financial or social imperative one year may be a fairly distant memory two or three years later.

How many women have taken that decision and regretted it? Two or three years down the line when theyve managed to get their life in some sort of order and theyre wondering if they could have coped after all? Could they.....if they'd managed to get a part time job and juggle child care with their mum and a local childminder could they have coped? If they'd grown up that year sooner, found their path a few months faster, could they have coped? Could they be sitting in the house she rents with it's comfortable but spartan furniture and the cut flowers on the table? Maybe, if she'd had some backup, maybe if she'd had some help the obstacles wouldnt have seemed so terribly big.....They rarely look so insurmountable when you've lived another year or so and learned a few more of life's lessons.

I meant "only" as in I'm not talking about abortion. It's a different issue with different struggles.

That said, I agree. It is a hard decision, and every situation is different. Regrets are a part of life, everyone wonders how their life would have been different if they'd made a major decision a different way. There's no way around that feeling, whether you give it up OR decide to keep it.

Maybe, if she'd had some backup, maybe if she'd had some help the obstacles wouldnt have seemed so terribly big.....

Right. Except the obstacles WOULD have been as big, they just would not have SEEMED so, and the wrong decision might have been reached because of it. Find me one single mother who says her life is easy and perfect all because of her child support check. The money clouds the decision, but does not ultimately play that much of a role in making the child's life significantly better.

Child support isn't meant to be a punishment for the dad, or a windfall for the mom. Maintenence is a claim the child has on both parents. Allowing the father to skip out on support if they avoid contact is punishing the child as much as the mother.

Of course, situations like this cause emotions to run high, and passion makes for bad decisions, which can make for frequent bad applications of law, but that's the idea.

Really? I must not know those men. Seriously, I have not heard of too many men that are too broken up about not seeing their child (until it's years later when they finally decide that they are ready to be a father).

Allowing the father to skip out on support if they avoid contact is punishing the child as much as the mother.

Only if the two parents can behave enough to make continued contact with both parents not a punishment for the child in and of itself. My theory is that not giving the child up for adoption is punishing the child if the parents will have eternal resentment towards each other.

Seriously, I have not heard of too many men that are too broken up about not seeing their child

Just a guess, you're talking to the women in these scenarios aren't you? I know several single mothers who genuinely believe their exes only take the kids for visitation to piss her off and torture her by having to be without them. These men love their children, and in turn think that she is doing everything she can to turn the kids against him. People in these situations notoriously don't have a damn clue what the other side's motivations are.

Well, I couldn't even speak with the fathers because..they weren't around.

Quote:

I know several single mothers who genuinely believe their exes only take the kids for visitation to piss her off and torture her by having to be without them.

Ironically, I know someone who is actually going through that right now.

Quote:

These men love their children, and in turn think that she is doing everything she can to turn the kids against him. People in these situations notoriously don't have a damn clue what the other side's motivations are.

Well, the father of the child of my best friend *claims* to love his son, but everyone knows (including his own family) that he only takes the son for visitation just to spite her and keep her "in line" (in other words, keeping her from taking his ass downtown to have his wages garnished for child support). He has paid NOTHING towards this child's well being. He was supposed to pay for daycare, but couldn't do that, so the child was put out of the daycare, and left my friend in the lurch. Luckily, his sister is able to babysit. Granted, some things she brought on herself, but damn!

:mad:

One point to consider is that all of these out of wedlock children are being born regardless of the consequesnces.

How many of them are really prevented by those consequenses?

Looking at the deadbeat dad list, I'd say not many.

he only takes the son for visitation just to spite her and keep her "in line" (in other words, keeping her from taking his ass downtown to have his wages garnished for child support).

That makes no sense. She allows him to see his child, and therefore she feels obligated not to take him to court to get child support payments? Either way, you make a great case that this child is not in a good situation, and probably would have been better off in an adoptive environment.

"So why should the woman be the only one who has to take responsibility?"

"Because she does not HAVE to take responsibility. She CHOOSES not to give the child up for adoption."


I think that what we hahv hyah....is a fail-yah to communicate...lol

What I meant was that people seem to have the concept that babies are disposable. Giving your child up for adoption is, from the point of view of nature, unnatural (the cuckoo notwithstanding). It is natural to keep the child. Therefore, she does not really choose NOT to give the child up, but to GIVE it up.

What I'm saying is that the men are just as responsible for the creation of the child as the woman is. She should not be required to give the child up merely because the man decides he doesn't want to help contribute to the child's upkeep, ie, take responsibility for his actions.

No offense to any of the men here, but men tend to sow their wild oats without care that they may be leaving behind a string of progeny. Allowing them to not pay child support will only encourage such irresponsible behavior on the part of the men, just as paying a lifetime welfare mother more for every child she has encourages her to have litters..

And having said that, I also think that it should be fairer. I've searched the web, and I can't find ANY rights for men who pay child support. They have NONE. It's pathetic. I think that if the man must pay child support, then the woman should have to contribute equally as well.

Sidhe

just as paying a lifetime welfare mother more for every child she has encourages her to have litters..

So disregarding for a moment where the money comes from, why does money in the form of a child support check not introduce the same impure motivations for having the child?

Giving your child up for adoption is, from the point of view of nature, unnatural (the cuckoo notwithstanding).

By that token so is birth control. Nature wants us to have a baby once a year or so from the age of 12 to the age of 45. As an intelligent, reasoning species, we are capable of determining that that isn't the best thing for people's happiness and short-term survival. Giving a child up for adoption isn't "disposing" of it, it's allowing that child to be raised in a loving two-parent environment where it will be completely wanted and never fought over--these are two people begging to be responsible for the creation of the child. There are millions of these couples. There is no way that a single mother forcing her ex to give her money can come close to equaling that.

If a woman is not capable of caring for a child on her own, then I don't believe she'll be able to care for it adequately just because she's receiving an extra couple hundred dollars a month. Meanwhile, she'll be interacting with a man she hates on a weekly basis, who likely hates her as well, and that mutual resentment will be obvious to the child and he/she will suffer because of it.

Forced child support encourages the "single mother pride," which discourages adoption, and also makes a bad situation between the parents worse, which hurts the child. I still maintain that despite the difficulty of the decision for these mothers, these children would be better off being adopted.

Yes she allows him to see the son, because if she didn't, he'd try to sue for custody, and not because he LOVES the boy so much either (again, he's very spiteful). As far as her not feeling obligated to take him to court...well it's not that, it's just that she hasn't. I have no idea why. She tends to be all smoke and no fire, if you get my drift. She'll say that she's going to do whatever, and doesn't do it.

And yes, this child would have been better off in a more stable relationship/home.

"So disregarding for a moment where the money comes from, why does money in the form of a child support check not introduce the same impure motivations for having the child?"


You hardly make as much money from child support as you do from welfare.


"By that token so is birth control. Nature wants us to have a baby once a year or so from the age of 12 to the age of 45. As an intelligent, reasoning species, we are capable of determining that that isn't the best thing for people's happiness and short-term survival. Giving a child up for adoption isn't "disposing" of it, it's allowing that child to be raised in a loving two-parent environment "

"If a woman is not capable of caring for a child on her own, then I don't believe she'll be able to care for it adequately just because she's receiving an extra couple hundred dollars a month. Meanwhile, she'll be interacting with a man she hates on a weekly basis, who likely hates her as well, and that mutual resentment will be obvious to the child and he/she will suffer because of it."


Yes, but when the species becomes too plentiful, the animals have ways of not breeding.

And you'd be amazed at how much a couple of hundred dollars a month can help.

The point I'm trying to make here is that of responsibility. A man should not be able to duck his responsibility just because he doesn't want the kid and the mother decides to keep it.


Sidhe

The point I'm trying to make here is that of responsibility. A man should not be able to duck his responsibility just because he doesn't want the kid and the mother decides to keep it.

It all comes down to what you define as responsibility. Everybody's responsible for trying to have the best outcome for the child. I believe giving the child up for adoption is responsible, and forced money exchange in an already unstable household is not, because the latter will not lead to a better life for the child.

Personally, I wouldn't consider that the father had lived up to his responsibility in the fullest unless he and the mother could be civil and he was a very active part of the child's life, in which case no child support would be warranted because the child would be spending as much time with the father as he would with the mother. (In the case that equally split time didn't happen, as an active parent I would expect him to help support the child monetarily--preferably by directly paying the daycare agency or in grocery store gift cards or something, but that's not always feasible. But I digress...) HOWEVER, if the father wanted nothing to do with the child, then his responsibility is to give the child up for adoption. If the woman refuses, that's her prerogative, but then she can't complain that he got her into this mess, and she shouldn't expect him to support the child any more than a stranger on the street should: he is in effect no longer that child's parent. If the woman can support the child by herself, great. If not, it is also her responsibility to give the child up for adoption.

A woman should not be able to duck HER responsibility just because she wants the kid but she can't afford to raise it.

I still disagree. All of your scenarios are aimed at getting a person out of taking care of a child they helped to create, merely because they've decided that they want nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter if he wants it or not. That isn't the point.

The point is, one got oneself into a situation, and therefore one must take responsibility for that situation in the event that it doesn't turn out like one planned.

Besides, there doesn't have to be any contact between the mother of the child and the father of the child. That's what the USPS is for--or garnishments.


Sidhe

I have to agree with Lady Sidhe on this one

Yes, well, color me shocked. :)

Exactly. Therefore, he should not have the gall to show up years later expecting to be instant daddy.

I think this is how my friend should handle her situation...the father isn't really doing jack fuck shit for that kid anyway.:rolleyes:

Therefore, he should not have the gall to show up years later expecting to be instant daddy.

I totally agree. By definition, we shouldn't want people who "aren't ready to be a parent" to be parents in the first place. We should take their reluctance as a clear sign, and in fact work to keep them from being parents.

I think this is how my friend should handle her situation...the father isn't really doing jack fuck shit for that kid anyway.

See, but here's the question: what is your friend doing that's so great for the kid? People get so focused on how the father had better pay up that they lose sight of the overall picture: whether the kid is getting adequate care in the first place. From what it sounds like, she's letting the father take the kid off unsupervised. If he really is as awful as you seem to think he is, she's being irresponsible by letting him be alone with the child, threat of a custody battle or not.

This is my whole point--money from the father is irrelevant if the child is in an inadequate home to begin with. These women need to be educated about adoption and encouraged to do it, instead of having family members admonish them "you don't give up blood" and spending all their time bitching about how the father's not doing anything. If the mother were doing a good job it wouldn't matter what the father were doing.