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.