Man and woman are in a romantic relationship. Both agree that they do not want children. Women signs notarized document agreeing not to get pregnant, and if she does father is absolved of all financial responsibility. Will NYC courts recognize this agreement or make father pay child support?
2007-07-02 01:52:47 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree with all the previous answers. Such an agreement would be absolutely ineffective in my state. I'm an attorney, but not in NY. Hopefully, you may get an answer from a NY attorney. My state has a Supreme Court opinion on this issue. A mother told her significant other she was on birth control and was not. She got pregnant and the father tried to get out of child support on the grounds of fraud. That was completely ineffective, although the Court recognized the father was the victim of fraud. However, the standard by which this is measured is the "best interests of the child." No child support is never in the best interest of a child.
2007-07-02 02:16:57 · answer #1 · answered by David M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Contrary to popular belief, child support is paid for the benefit of the child, not the parent. Parents cannot, by contract, deprive the child of it; nor can a private contract be used to bind the government -- the TAXPAYERS, really -- into supporting the child. For the same public policy reason, agreements between spouses not to support each other are also null and void.
2007-07-02 03:42:13 · answer #2 · answered by Rеdisca 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I suppose if you could prove that you had no role in getting her pregnant it would hold up. And of course if you got a vasectomy you'd be able to prove that. The larger question is, though, why would anybody with any conscience at all want to create the possibility of bringing a child into this world and not take the responsibility to father that child? Sounds like your answer to that question is that it's real expensive huh? Get your mind off the sex my man, there are more important things in the world. Jeez.
2007-07-02 02:06:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Child support and visitation are two different things and one does not effect the other. In other words... he is not paying to see his kids... that is his right. You need to stop allowing him to make changes as he pleases.. that is why he is acting the way he does now. Get a lawyer or get with child support and have contempt charges filed against him for non payment of support. He is violating the order by not paying. Also a nice letter by mail to him telling him you will only be following the original court order couldn't hurt either.
2016-05-21 01:34:29 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sure there would be a way around it even if it was written in there. Anyone who is aware of the law, particularly pertaining to the child's rights would know that in any court as long as the interest of the child are met all contracts and negotiations are abolished. I guess only guarantees is to have a vasectomy. I mean if you are not going to use it, it would still not be 100% though.
2007-07-02 02:03:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, I know for a FACT in PA that a woman can ( and in my case did) change her mind after signing and agreeing not to seek child support. According to the laws here a woman may at ANY time come back to the biological father and seek support, even if she has sign a contract stating that she NEVER would seek it.
2007-07-02 02:02:21 · answer #6 · answered by Mark A 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The father owes support for the child. In the situation you describe, the child was not a party to the agreement and thus does not give up his support.
Further, in contract law, there has to be "consideration" for a contract to be binding. Consideration means paying something to get something in return.
2007-07-02 02:03:12 · answer #7 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I know in my state that Court's are never bound by agreements of parties in regard to custody, visitation, child support, etc., meaning they can change them if they wish. Also, child support is not the parent's, it's the child's.
2007-07-02 02:03:55 · answer #8 · answered by Princess 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, absolutely not. Child support is for the child. An adult parent cannot waive the child's right to this support. It would never stand up in court.
2007-07-02 02:06:50 · answer #9 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
such a contract is void on it's face in all 50 states as against public policy. Even in New York.
2007-07-02 02:53:20 · answer #10 · answered by hexeliebe 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋