I'm not the trapper, so don't give me any lip! ;)
2006-08-17 15:56:00 · 15 answers · asked by no_um_4_u 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
well yes.. birth control should not be the issue.. the issue is the child itself... the man did it.. and took the risk. besides birth control is not 100% fool proof
2006-08-17 16:02:03 · answer #1 · answered by Sheila 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. Just because she stopped taking her birth control, he still commited the act of sex, and you learn early on that sex can lead to a pregnancy. If he didn't want the possibility of having a child, he shouldn't have had sex. The court DOES NOT CARE if you can prove that the female stopped taking birth control--the male could have still worn a condom.
There are very few cases that the court will not assign child support. One of the main reasons is if the father completely gives up his parental rights. That means he is not entitled to visitation, and being a part of the child's life will be up to the mother. One would be if the male says he's not the father, and the mother refuses to have a DNA test done. Other than that, the non-primary or non-custodial parent will be assigned child support.
2006-08-17 16:30:56 · answer #2 · answered by Bachman-ette 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
On my soapbox about this one. Sex should be between two people who love each other and are willing to make a life commiment to one another. No such thing as "trapped" sex is for reproduction, it's his baby. The main thing is that a baby was made and has to live within this mess that was not it's fault. I think our society needs to tighen thier morals a little bit. Bottom line is pay up if you don't want a baby don't hop into bed.
2006-08-17 16:20:21 · answer #3 · answered by coach 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no matter what was her motives,once the man fathers a child, he's responsible for child support. and the courts are very strict on this. If you play , you gotta pay. It takes two to tango. If he didn't use any protection, that's his responsibility as much as hers.
2006-08-17 16:16:13 · answer #4 · answered by rosieC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
lmao. No lip giving here but yes the court would make the guy pay it doesnt matter if she trapped him or not and if he has proof that she trapped him or whatever. If that kid is his he is going to be paying until that kid is 18.
2006-08-17 16:02:40 · answer #5 · answered by raechelblueeyes 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He would need to have proof she in fact did stop taking the pill. But she could turn around and say that they in fact bith wanted to have the baby. She could lie her *** off and the poor guy will be sucked into paying child support.
2006-08-17 16:02:07 · answer #6 · answered by Lily 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he still has to take responsibility for his actions. No birth control is 100% anyway, except for abstinence.
2006-08-17 16:05:59 · answer #7 · answered by Violet 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't matter how or why she gets pregnant. How would you prove it anyway, no birth control is 100% effective. If he doesn't want the risk, he shouldn't shoot the gun. Wrap it up.
2006-08-17 16:02:11 · answer #8 · answered by therego2 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, if a man is the father and is proved the father, he will have to pay child support.
2006-08-17 16:06:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Does the fact that a child was born change? No....so pay up.
2006-08-17 16:07:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋